Mud and dirt in its future
CubCrafters helps builders with the airplane of their dreams
Build your own cub
A What?
Hideous. Blasphemy. An abomination.
The reaction to the nosewheel version of the XCub among traditional backcountry pilots this year was swift, loud, and somewhat predictable.
And the fact that CubCrafters—the purest keeper of the Super Cub flame for decades—was the one that sprung it felt to some like a stinging double cross. Et tu, Brute?
We didn’t see that one coming.
But from a purely business standpoint, CubCrafters’ logic in launching the NXCub (nosewheel XCub) is compelling. Only 15 percent of today’s pilots have tailwheel endorsements. The FAA-certified XCub is marketed to government agencies that specialize in law enforcement, wildlife management, and border patrol—and the people who fly them in those capacities are game wardens and law enforcement officers first. They’re looking for tools that will help them do their jobs in remote and hazardous places, and they don’t get judged on perfect wheel landing technique.
Add the fact that the NXCub can take off and land just as short (or shorter) than the tailwheel version, and the economic truth that nosewheel airplanes are less expensive to insure, and it’s easy to understand why the NXCub came to be. Really, the most surprising aspect may be that it didn’t happen a long time ago.
And for those of us who will always regard a nosewheel Cub as sacrilege, rest assured that the change needn’t be permanent. This nose job is reversible.
The XCub was designed from the beginning with landing gear that could easily convert between tricycle and tailwheel. So, whatever your personal predilection, the “damage” needn’t be permanent. The training wheel also comes off. —DH
Sure, CubCrafters has sold many XCubs—about 60 of which have been delivered to buyers to date. The surprising part is that, after finishing its stringent, multi-million-dollar FAA Part 23 certification effort in 2016, CubCrafters has seen its Experimental-category business grow far faster.
The company, based in Yakima, Washington, expects to deliver about 100 new airplanes this year—and more than half of them will be Experimental and Light Sport models. And the lion’s share of those are FX–3 models made by individual builders in Yakima under the company’s pioneering builder-assistance program (see “Professional Help,” p. 64).
Each owner/builder comes to Yakima for a full week of fabricating aircraft parts ranging from wing ribs to carbon-fiber side walls. Then they go home for about 90 days while those parts are put together and the aircraft is covered with fabric and painted by CubCrafters employees.
Finally, owners return for two days of final assembly, which involves hanging the engine, propeller, and avionics; an FAA inspection; and—if all goes according to plan—obtaining an Experimental/amateur-built airworthiness certificate. CubCrafters test pilots perform the first flights.
“The building process was fun and interesting, and it allowed me to learn the airplane inside and out,” said David Gochenaur, an FX–3 owner and pilot in western Maryland. “You get to work alongside the welders and technicians on the assembly line. And the fact that they’re looking over your shoulder and observing what you’re doing provides a high degree of comfort in the finished product. I didn’t expect to enjoy the process nearly as much as I did.”
Gochenaur, 60, owns a construction business, but he says he’s never built an airplane and has no formal training in aircraft maintenance. “I’m not a mechanic by any stretch of the imagination.”
He’s a veteran pilot with instrument and multiengine ratings but had less than 50 hours of tailwheel experience—and none of it recent—at the time he chose to build an FX–3.
Gochenaur enrolled at TacAero, a flight school in ceaselessly windy Hood River, Oregon, for tailwheel training in a big-engine Super Cub that’s similar to an FX–3 in size and temperament.
“The flying was humbling at first—but also really challenging and enjoyable,” he said. “It was good preparation for flying the FX–3. When the time came, I felt ready.”
The FX–3 is a more refined, structurally strengthened, and higher-speed version of the original Carbon Cub—a Light Sport aircraft that’s limited to a maximum 1,320 pounds gross weight and a 120-knot top speed in level flight by LSA regulations.
The FX-3 allows options such as a more powerful engine (186 horsepower), a constant-speed propeller, larger fuel tanks, a higher gross weight, more payload, IFR instrumentation, and other performance enhancements. Gochenaur said he was drawn to the Experimental category because it allows more freedom to modify and operate the airplane as he wished while using non-TSO avionics and other accessories. His instrument panel is built around a Garmin G3X touchscreen primary flight display/multifunction display that was recently approved for installation in hundreds of Standard-category aircraft.
“I wanted to make my airplane IFR capable and legal,” he said. “The Experimental category allows me to do that in a common-sense, cost-effective way.”
"You get to work alongside the welders and technicians on the assembly line. And the fact that they're looking over your shoulder and observing what you're doing provides a high degree of comfort in the finished product. I didn't expect to enjoy the process nearly as much as I did." —David GochenaurOne downside to the Experimental category is that the airplane can’t be used for commercial purposes. But Gochenaur said that wasn’t a drawback for him.
“The premise of this airplane is fun,” he said. “This is the airplane I’m going to keep until they scatter my ashes out of it.”
A CubCrafters test pilot did the first two hours of flying in Gochenaur’s FX-3—but the FAA required 40 hours of flight testing within 75 miles of Yakima before he was allowed to fly it home.
Gochenaur did that flying himself, and he said it was one of his favorite aspects of the FX-3 build experience.
“Eastern Washington and the Columbia River Valley are absolutely beautiful in winter,” he said. “On those cold, clear winter days, the airplane’s performance is just spectacular, and the scenery in that part of the country is amazing. I had the time of my life just flying around the local area logging the required flight time.”
CubCrafters has invested heavily in its builder-assist program and even built on-airport apartments to house builders during their stays in Yakima. An employee concierge manages all aspects of each build and makes sure all the materials and staff experts are available at the proper times.
Professional Help
CubCrafters reinvents the builder-assist process
The idea of “builder-assist” programs has been radically reinterpreted over the last 15 years—and it has always been controversial.
Kit-airplane manufacturer Glasair invented the process in 2005 with its Two Weeks to Taxi program. Builders come to the Glasair factory where employees guided them through the process of assembling their airplanes. In two weeks, a builder can assemble an airframe, hang the engine, and connect the controls under factory supervision. The structural parts are complete at the end of the process, and builders can deal with time-consuming finishing items such as paint and interior on their own schedules.
The FAA helped formalize the process in 2009 when it published a Fabrication Checklist Job Aid that listed the hundreds of tasks required to build an Experimental-category, fixed-wing airplane and assigned numeric values to them. Builders get a certain amount of credit, for example, for jobs such as assembling wing ribs, building and covering control surfaces, and installing wheels and brakes.
In 2015, CubCrafters launched its own factory-assist program that used the FAA guidelines to reinvent the process. The FAA checklist gives builders a great deal of credit, for example, for fabricating parts, but relatively little for labor-intensive tasks such as covering and painting.
CubCrafters has builders focus on high-credit tasks such as building components for one full work week. Then company employees do much of the skilled work of assembling the aircraft. Builders return for two days to finish the construction process.
Builder-assist programs are hotly debated within the FAA and the Experimental aviation community. Proponents say factory involvement improves aircraft quality and overall flight safety. Opponents say it goes against the spirit of the Experimental category, which was intended to encourage “education and recreation” for hobbyists.
Sling Aircraft, a South African company that makes a variety of two- and four-seat sport aircraft, has begun offering its own take on builder assistance. Sling builders from abroad can come to the factory in Johannesburg, assemble their airplanes, and then have them crated and shipped home for certification and flight testing.
The FAA specifies that amateur builders must perform the majority of the work—but there’s no requirement that the work take place in the United States. —DH
“The inventory and raw materials have got to be ready for each builder,” said Pat Horgan, CubCrafters president. “They’re busy people, and their schedules are very tight. It takes a high degree of logistical effort and sophistication to make sure everything’s on hand for each builder as they go through the process.”
Each builder gets to know individual CubCrafters mechanics and technicians as they perform the required tasks of constructing “51 percent” of their aircraft to meet the FAA requirement for the amateur builder to build the major portion of the aircraft.
“They see everything that goes into producing their airplane—and they get to know our people quite well,” Horgan said. “They spend time with our front-line people, and that builds a very strong bond.”
Airplanes made by individual builders with factory assistance have the same warranty as other models, Horgan said. They undergo the same engineering, and they are held to the same performance and flight-test standards.
The Experimental-category EX–3 and FX–3 also benefit from the XCub program because they have adopted many of the same materials and components. The stick grips, iPad mounts, and even the ailerons on the XCub are identical to those on EX–3s and FX–3s.
Logistical considerations also limit the builder-assist program to no more than two visiting owners/builders per week—and the program is so popular that there’s a mounting backlog. An FX–3 buyer today, for example, would have to wait about one full year for a building slot, and it would take roughly 14 months to finish the process. Gochenaur made the construction of his FX–3 and flying it from the Northwest to the Mid-Atlantic a family affair. A nephew who’s also an aerospace engineer joined him in Yakima to take part in the construction process, and a brother who worked as a professional pilot in Alaska came along and coached him through the transcontinental ferry flight home.
“We seldom got higher than 1,500 feet above the ground all the way from the state of Washington to Maryland—and that’s a great way to see the country,” Gochenaur said.
Even though he envisioned flying the FX–3 purely for fun and adventure, Gochenaur said it makes an astonishingly good commuter. He keeps it on a grass strip at a farm in rural Maryland and flies it to an office in Northern Virginia as well as construction sites throughout the region.
“This airplane wasn’t supposed to be about practicality—but it’s been surprisingly helpful for just getting around this area,” he said.
“The real reason I got it was to go on hunting trips, fly to Alaska, and just get out there,” he said. “It looks pristine now—but I can assure you there’s going to be plenty of mud and dirt in its future.”
Email [email protected]
Dave Hirschman
Related Articles
