One of the things I love about aviation is that it’s the great equalizer. Being a pilot is a shared space that seems to allow who you are and what you’ve accomplished melt into the background for a while allowing the experience and joy of flying an aircraft to become the tie that binds. And if you’re paying attention, there’s almost always something you can learn from listening to another pilot.

Siebel started flying in the early 1980s. Considering the training fleet of the day—the airframes, avionics, interiors, and engines—not much was new or exciting other than the intrinsic value of exploring the science and fun of learning to fly. Like many pilots, he stepped away from flying for a while but never lost his love of aviation.

A few years later, Siebel found himself back in the seat of a GA aircraft—a Cirrus SR22—only to discover that a great deal had changed. Mesmerized, as we all were at the time, he described the integration of technology in a piston GA aircraft as “almost unimaginable.” Imagine having last climbed out of steam gauge (circa mid-1950s design) aircraft and being introduced to a sleek, composite, glass-cockpit, parachute-equipped aircraft with more bells and whistles than a model train museum. Clearly a great deal had changed, and he was ready to jump in again and not look back.

Aviation is a huge part of Siebel’s life—it’s an invaluable business tool, a source of recreation, and the mechanism to support some of his philanthropic endeavors. As one might expect of someone of his stature, he owns a Boeing BBJ, but he never once mentioned it in our conversation—probably because he can’t fly it inverted like the GB1 GameBird that he is enamored with.

Listening to Siebel talk about his aviation experience is fascinating and inspirational. As I mentioned earlier, if you pay attention, it’s easy to learn from fellow aviators, and I did. Something that fascinated me about his aviation experience (and inspired me to do better) is his unwavering commitment to safety and training.

“I’m a super enthusiastic pilot who likes to be safe,” Siebel said.

And it shows. Once, while getting some mountain flying training with a CFI, he inadvertently got into a spin while executing an aggressive 180-degree turn to simulate retreating from a canyon. That experience prompted him to get spin training, which as he explained, “the next thing you know I own a GameBird.” 

Siebel shared that he flew 300 hours last year—a big number for anyone who doesn’t fly for a living, let alone someone who’s busy day job is running a Fortune 100 tech company. But even more impressive is the fact that 50 percent of that time was devoted to training and becoming a better, safer pilot. Staying proficient in all five of the aircraft he flies certainly requires training, but dedicating half of one’s flight time to that speaks volumes. 

• READ MORE: In Depth with JoeBen Bevirt Illuminates the Joby Vision

We all have an intelligence quotient (IQ) and an emotional quotient (EQ). If pilots have a safety quotient (SQ), an ability to understand, assess, and manage the need to be safe and proficient and to take the steps necessary to maximize and maintain that, I’d say that Siebel’s SQ is very high, and he continues to stack the deck in his favor.

To that end, his new love, which also makes him a safer pilot in the realm of unusual attitudes and upset recovery, is aerobatics—something he didn’t start until he was in his 60s. His beautiful GB1 GameBird comes out of the nest for those flights of fancy. Siebel trains with world champion and aerobatic pilot Sean D. Tucker (another pilot whose SQ is off the charts). 

When not tossing the GameBird about while arguing with it over the laws of aerodynamics and physics, Siebel also has an affinity for birds that swim, owning both a Daher Kodiak and a CubCrafters XCub on floats. Also in the fun-to-fly category is his wheeled XCub.

“It’s hard to have more fun in an aircraft than in a Carbon Cub,” he said. “You can land these things anywhere. They’re unbelievable. We land in the driveway, alfalfa fields, cow pastures, mountaintops, the highway…[But] let me clarify this first—it’s lawful to land on the highway in Montana.”

His Montana ranch is also home of an annual fly-in Siebel hosts. Through his connections who share the love of aviation, his charity event generates funds to provide college scholarships for children of Montana state troopers and fish, wildlife, and parks officers.

From business to pleasure and philanthropy, aviation is woven into the fabric of Siebel’s life.

• READ MORE: In Depth With an ‘Airport Kid’

With time running short, I didn’t want to leave our conversation without asking his opinion about the role of AI in aviation. Automation in aviation (think autopilot) is nothing new, but the concept of AI (like machine learning) and the speed of its integration can be a great source of debate: Is it good thing, bad thing, and how soon will we see a required crew of two be reduced to one or even zero pilots? What should we look forward to or be cautious about?

His Q&A responses were both surprising and refreshing.

FLYING Magazine (FM): What was the first aircraft you owned?

Tom Siebel (TS): My first plane was a 140 hp Cherokee. I used to have a B36TC, a Malibu, a couple of Maules, PC6, PC12, Falcon 2000, Global Express, and others, but I’d say the planes I fly now are by far the most fun.

FM: What has been your greatest aviation experience thus far?

TS: I was able to do some formation training with the Chilean national acrobatics team. And I also trained with Sean Tucker doing formation flight in the GameBirds. It was really exhilarating and really exciting. It’s been one of the most exciting experiences of my life.

FM: What is the future of AI in the cockpit? Will we see pilotless aircraft any time soon?

TS: I don’t think so. The UAV problem is very difficult to solve. C3.AI has built some of the largest and most complex enterprise scale AI applications on earth for places like the United States Air Force, the intelligence agency, and others.

We can spool up 10,000 virtual machines in the cloud doing 24-bit floating point operations, say 20,000 of them on three-, four-, or five-gigahertz cycles—this is an unimaginable computing capacity. A $100 million worth of computing capacity to train a learning model, which actually has very, very little intelligence and it requires two gigawatts of power. The human brain has 60 billion neurons that make 100 trillion analog connections simultaneously. And it operates on only 17 watts of power.

As somebody who is a leader in artificial intelligence and knows something about it, I do not think we’re going to see fully autonomous, ground-based terrestrial vehicles or aircraft really anytime soon. I don’t think we need to worry about [pilotless aircraft] anytime soon. That being said, will artificial intelligence assist pilots in single pilot operations? Absolutely.

I think one of the most sophisticated applications of computing in aviation—I’m not sure there’s any artificial intelligence in there—is definitely what Garmin has done with this Safe Return system. That’s almost unimaginable.

FM: What is the best application of AI in aviation?

TS: Predictive AI is a good example. We’ve taken all of the aircraft weapons systems, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, KC-135, and aggregated all of the telemetry off these systems, all of the maintenance data, all of the flight history, all the information about flight stories, and the weather where they were flying. We’ve aggregated about 100 terabytes of data in a tool called PANDA (Predictive Analytics and Decision Assistant).

We run those data through machine-learning models to predict system failure before it happens. And so the idea is, if we can identify the system, auxiliary power unit, flap actuator, igniter, whatever it might be, and can identify it’s failure 50 or 100 flight hours before it happens, we can then dispatch the personnel and the materiel to converge with the aircraft, maintain it, and it flies off and doesn’t break. 

In doing so we’re able to increase aircraft availability. The United States Air Force has 5,000 aircraft, and this AI can increase availability by 25 percent on any given day.

FM: Could AI have changed the outcome of any historic crashes, like US Airways 1549 “Miracle on the Hudson,” or United Airlines Flight 232 “Impossible Landing?”

TS: Miracle on the Hudson: Could a computer have pulled that off? I don’t think so. Impossible Landing: No hydraulics, no flight controls. Whoever was flying that was thinking out of the box. A computer’s not going to do that. No way, no how.

FM: What do you find most compelling about aviation right now?

TS: I think the most interesting thing I’m seeing in aviation is things like what Sean Tucker is doing with the Bob Hoover Academy, and I think the work that AOPA has done with their STEM curriculum, using aviation as a means of teaching science, math, and engineering.

This feature first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post C3.AI Top Executive Possesses High Aviation Quotient appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Slowing down matters as much as accelerating in most auto racing, and the same is true of STOL Drag racing. Unlike traditional Reno-style pylon racing, which involves no slowing down whatsoever, STOL Drag requires starting and stopping twice while flying less than a mile.

I have never been to a STOL Drag race, and so I will probably be pummeled for whatever I say, but here goes anyway.

Two pylons and corresponding start/stop lines are set 2,000 feet apart. A third pylon is placed at the 1,000-foot mark, just for reference. The idea is to take off from the first line, fly to the far line, land, come to a full stop, turn around, and repeat the process without touching the ground between the lines. Two airplanes compete side by side, and the winner is the one that first comes to a full stop at the end of the race. Best times are just over 50 seconds, so, for a pleasurable activity, it’s brief.

In principle anyone can participate, but the really serious competitors use highly modified airplanes that can accelerate like mad and stop very short after touching down. However, competitors are paired off according to aircraft performance, so it wouldn’t be unusual to see a Skylane compete against a Beech Bonanza.

• READ MORE: Valdez Fly-In STOL Competition Celebrates 20th Anniversary

Since it’s a time trial, the race rewards acceleration, speed on the airborne segment, and deceleration after each landing. But the equation is complicated by the need to begin to slow down long before reaching the far pylon. Pilots accomplish this by chopping power, kicking in full rudder, and slipping toward the line. But even this phase isn’t as simple as it sounds. Airplanes decelerate quicker with wheel braking than aerodynamic braking, so while it may seem as if it’s best to touch down at minimum speed to reduce the rollout distance, it may actually be better to get the wheels on the ground as quickly as possible, even a few knots above the stall speed.

Initial acceleration is a function of the airplane’s mass and the engine-propeller combination’s thrust. Big thrust requires lots of power and a big prop. Two of the dominant competitors in the sport, Toby Ashley and Steve Henry, fly a Carbon Cub and Just Aircraft Highlander, respectively.

(Henry’s Nampa, Idaho, company, Wild West Aircraft, sells the Highlander as a light sport kit.) Neither racing airplane has much in common with its ordinary Lycoming- or Rotax-powered brethren. Both use liquid-cooled, geared, turbocharged, intercooled engines with very big props. They say the engines put out around 400 hp. The airplanes are stripped down, competing at weights less than 1,000 pounds. Since they are generating more than 2,000 pounds of static thrust, and therefore achieve an initial acceleration of 2Gs or more, it’s not surprising that both get airborne in a couple of seconds and a few dozen feet.

• READ MORE: The Ryan YO-51 Wowed with STOL Performance

The powerful initial acceleration does not last long, however, because thrust diminishes as speed increases, and drag grows in proportion to the square of speed. At 90 knots, which an airplane accelerating at an average 1G would reach in five seconds and 400 feet, drag has increased to more than 200 pounds and thrust is cut in half. Since the drag can be subtracted from the thrust to get the net force accelerating the mass of the airplane, it follows that the forward acceleration may already be well under 1G.

The actual segment times, based on videos of Henry racing at Reno last year, are, as you would guess, asymmetrical, reflecting the fact that it is easier to speed up than slow down. From brake release to throttle down at midcourse, about 10 seconds elapse. From there to wheels on, another 10, but at that point the airplane is still moving at around its stall speed of 35 knots. The rollout takes four seconds and another four to get turned around. The times going back are similar for a total of 52 seconds.

If the average acceleration up to the middle of the course were two-thirds of a G, the maximum speed attained would be about 125 knots. If the touchdown speed at the far end were 35 knots, the average deceleration in the slip would be a bit under under one-half G—more at the start and less at the end. By the time the wheels touch the ground, the rate of deceleration is pretty low. Wheel braking brings it back up to the half-G level.

• READ MORE: Valdez STOL Competition & Fly-In Air Show Marks 20 Years of Excellence

The Carbon Cub and Highlander regularly finish within a fraction of a second of each other, and successive heats also differ by small amounts. That consistency is a testament to the pilots’ skills, since, as you find when you watch any of Henry’s cockpit videos, quite a lot goes on during the brief race. Everything hinges on the deceleration timing, staying as low as possible, and amount of wheel braking that can be applied without nosing over.

Henry claims to use his airplane as a daily driver—probably at about 20 percent of power. But I suppose that if STOL Drag racing continues to be popular, it may eventually engender purpose-built airplanes. Very likely the slip-to-slow-down approach would be supplemented or replaced by large air brakes that would add several square feet to the airplane’s equivalent flat plate area. Maybe a slight edge in acceleration could be gained by cleaning up the front end, replacing the big intercooler radiator with a small tank of ice water, and getting engine cooling air to the main radiator with a scoop and duct. But aerodynamic refinement may be pointless, since so little time is spent at high speed.

High wings and a tailwheel are taken for granted on STOL airplanes for a lot of practical reasons. But I wonder whether a low wing with some extra span—taking better advantage of ground effect—and tricycle gear with brakes on all three wheels might bring some advantages. Add lots of horsepower and an airfoil with a maximum lift coefficient of two, and then…off to the races!

This column first appeared in the April 2024/Issue 947 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Looking at the Physics of STOL Drag appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Vanyo was killed in his amateur-built CubCrafters Carbon Cub near Twisp, Washington, last month. Twisp is 112 miles north of Moses Lake in an area popular for outdoor recreation.

What Happened

According to the NTSB, on the morning of October 1 Vanyo was taking a flight accompanied by a friend who also owned a Carbon Cub, a popular backcountry aircraft known for its STOL capability.

The two airplanes launched from a private airfield and flew directly to a hillside located about 2 nm away. The friend landed uphill on the slope of the hillside and positioned his airplane to the west of a tree.

Using a radio, the friend advised Vanyo that he should land in between the parked airplane and the tree. According to the friend, Vanyo made two low passes over the ridge, performing reconnaissance over the landing area, then the friend “observed the airplane touch down on the slope further to the east of his location (on the wrong side of the tree) and land upslope. After a short landing roll, the Vanyo appeared to abort the landing. During the attempt to take off, the airplane’s left wheel collided with a large rock, resulting in the left landing gear folding under the fuselage.

The damaged Cub continued over the ridge to the east, then the friend lost sight of the airplane. He radioed Vanyo to ask if he was OK, and Vanyo replied, “I’m flying, but I’m having problems.” The airplane collided with terrain shortly thereafter. Rescuers reported finding Vanyo dead at the scene.

The wreckage was strewn over approximately 90 feet, beginning with “points of contact consisting of disrupted dirt on the upslope of a hill.” Investigators found chips of silver paint and small pieces of fabric, along with numerous vortex generators in the dirt and outboard wingtip structure. A large portion of the forward left wingtip was found 25 feet from the main wreckage, along with pieces of plexiglass and splinters of propeller that led up to the main fuselage, which was found on its left side with the right wing folded forward over the engine.

The tires came to rest near the belly pod. The left tire was flat and had several gouges and scrapes on the rubber, and the metal hub was bent and folded over itself. The landing gear struts had collapsed, and the bottom of the left struts were separated and appeared to have been worn from being dragged across terrain.

The left wing was crushed and came to rest inverted. The left forward and aft lift wing struts had separated but remained attached to their respective fittings on the fuselage and wing.

The fuselage frame behind the left lift-strut fork and gear-strut connection fittings was deformed. The left-aileron pulley, located adjacent to the deformed frame, could not be moved, as the aileron cable was trapped between the frame and pulley. Free movement of the cable is essential for activation of the aileron and aircraft control.

An approximate 1.5-foot piece of the left aft-lift strut remained attached to the airframe, with the trailing edge of both portions of that strut exhibiting black marks consistent with tire rubber. The flaps appeared to be partially down, and the fuel selector was in the off position. However, it could not be determined if this action was performed by Vanyo or rescue personnel responding to the accident.

Investigators could not definitely determine the point of first impact but did find tracks in the dry grass on the slope consistent with the landing direction. In addition, a large rock with numerous impact marks was located on the saddle of the hill. In the surrounding area, several silver chips of paint and a zip tie were found that would have been on the landing gear

The NTSB is continuing its investigation, with the final report likely several months away.

The post NTSB Releases Preliminary Report on Vanyo Accident appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The aircraft maker collaborated with Red Bull and the extreme sports promoter XDubai to stage the landing of a Carbon Cub on the helipad atop the 56-story Burj Al Arab Hotel in Dubai, UAE. Luke Czepiela, a Red Bull Air Race pilot and Carbon Cub owner, flew a modified version of the aircraft onto the pad, which is about 90 feet wide and 695 feet above sea level.

• READ MORE: Behind the Scenes at CubCrafters, Crafting a Cub

“All big moments start with little ideas powered by imagination and the desire to create something special,” stated Patrick Horgan, CubCrafters’ president and CEO. “Red Bull has done many projects over the years that have inspired aviators worldwide, so we were honored to join them on this project to demonstrate the incredible capabilities of the kinds of aircraft our company designs and manufactures.”

“To ensure success, we wanted the airplane best suited to the challenge, and CubCrafters was the obvious choice,” said Michał Graczyk, the event’s aviation project manager. Brad Damm, CubCrafters’ vice president, noted that two years of planning went into the project, and that successfully landing on the helipad “really pushes the limits of what a best-of-class STOL aircraft, and an extremely capable and dedicated pilot, can achieve.” 

• READ MORE: CubCrafters Gets Set To Go Public

Mike Patey—a bush pilot, aviation engineer, and YouTube personality who also owns a Carbon Cub—joined the technical crew in making modifications. “It was a pretty simple formula,” he said. “We cut weight, changed the CG to increase the effectiveness of the brakes, and added extra horsepower.”

Ever since the hotel’s completion in 1999, its helipad has been a setting for promotional events. In 2004, Tiger Woods hit golf balls from the pad before the Dubai Desert Classic tournament. The following year, Roger Federer and Andre Agassi played a tennis match there. In 2013, the helipad seemed especially small as Formula 1 driver David Coulthard performed donuts in his Red Bull racing car before the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.

The post Carbon Cub Pilot Takes STOL to The Extreme With Helipad Landing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

My earliest concerts with the progenitor Cub taught me well. In a Piper J-3 flown with instructor Rich Davidson out of Lee Bottom Flying Field (64I) near Jefferson, Indiana, 20 years ago, I learned the first of many Cub lessons. The sunny little taildragger loves to fly with the doors off, low and slow—it knows no other way. While the merry creature handles just fine on the pavement, it loves the grass, and the more out of the way the green piste, the better.

Meeting the CubCrafters’ Carbon Cub series for the first time, I feel no differently. In fact, this latest lesson hit home squarely our first time touching down on a gravel bar in the Yakima River near the company’s home base in southeastern Washington state.

I’d come to Yakima to fly two of the latest variants of the Carbon Cub, the factory-assist-built FX3 and its newest sibling, the EX3 kit-built version, for the experimental/amateur-built category. While the two feature the same fuselage and tailwheel design, what’s up front in the versions we’d fly is a little different but demonstrates well the design’s latest evolution into the customizable machine so well matched to the pilot.

A. The Executive Glass Touch panel option features the Garmin G3X Touch with synthetic vision for terrain following, and an angle of attack indicator (AOA) to help squeeze all of the performance from takeoff to landing and preserve safe margins along the way.

B. Comms are enhanced by the Garmin GTR 200 VHF com radio.

C. A remote-mounted Garmin GTX 335R transponder ensures you’re compliant no matter what airspace you fly in.

D. You can add an autopilot, ADS-B, and an upgraded transponder in the panel, depending on the missions you plan in your FX-3 or EX-3.

The Power

Both aircraft feature a new 2,000-pound maximum gross weight—but from there, you have options. Either can be powered by the CubCrafters-exclusive Lycoming CC363i with 186 hp, up from the CC340’s 180 hp in earlier versions of the Carbon Cub. With fuel injection from Precision Airmotive and dual electronic ignition from Lightspeed Engineering, the CC363i extracts just a little bit more oomph from the block, as witnessed in our trials.

That engine also drives a new, lighter-weight, composite constant-speed propeller. CubCrafters promises higher efficiency, faster throttle response, and a 20-percent increase in thrust from the duo—and by pitting it against the previous engine, that made sense.

Where does it come from? Well, the improvements began with the CC340, and the impetus to lose weight as compared to standard Lycoming O-300 series en-gines. CubCrafters turned to partner ECi/Titan in 2008 and its own in-house manufacturing to fashion lighter-weight components, such as an aluminum sump and a magnesium accessory case.

Along with reducing weight in the electrical components, the changes dropped 45 pounds as compared to an O-320. The carbureted CC340 makes 180 hp, and the company thought it had found the ideal powerplant for the Carbon Cub. More than 400 deliveries later, that assertion has been validated.

But wait, the team thought—we can do more. The new engine just didn’t resonate well with the constant-speed prop—which was an important part of the wishlist customers had for better performance across all phases of flight.

Making It Sing

The skunkworks at CubCrafters set their sights on the Hartzell Trailblazer prop that’s popular in backcountry applications for its ability to coax the most from the engine for takeoff and climb. In the process of developing a powerplant to match, CubCrafters also moved to fuel injection—also by Precision Airmotive—for greater fuel efficiency and more reliable engine starts.

• READ MORE: We Fly: CubCrafters Carbon Cub FX-3 & EX-3

Adding a governor and other accoutrements to the prop/engine interface also adds pounds—so an increase in horsepower needed to offset incremental weight gains. The team found the power through incorporating Millennium cylinders with tapered barrels, a counterweighted crankshaft, and Superior Air Parts roller tappets. A proprietary cold-air induction system with a unique curved plenum resembling a streamlined udder is formed out of carbon fiber—we saw them in the molding process during our factory tour. Aero Sport Power—a longtime friend to CubCrafters—assembles the engine and tests it before it goes on the FX3 or out to a customer with the EX3 kit.

Proof in the Flying

For our first test flight, in a tangerine-and-black FX3 marrying the CC363i and Trailblazer prop, we caught the last of the cool morning at CubCrafters’ delivery and maintenance base on the south side of the field atYakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field (KYKM) in central Washington. CubCrafters’ vice president of sales and marketing, Brad Damm, showed me around the preflight inspection and then hopped in the back to introduce me to the airplane properly.

I learned the ground coupling of the airplane with some S-turns, taxiing across the yellow line and trying the toe brakes along the way. The visibility to the front is pretty good, considering both my average height and the conventional-gear arrangement, so those turns served as an opportunity to wake up my feet as opposed to being truly necessary to see the way forward. In the cockpit, I oriented myself to the combo of the Garmin G3X Touch integrated flight deck plus G5 electronic instrument and GTR 200 VHF com radio—complete with an autopilot we wouldn’t use much. The throttle/prop levers sat at my left hand just above my waistline, with the mixture actuated by a knob on the left side of the instrument panel.

Still, I was ready to get the airplane into a flight attitude. With 7,600-feet-plus of pavement on Runway 27 ahead of us, even my first takeoff in the FX3 was hilariously short. A smooth application of throttle brought immediate reply as I held the stick forward to coax up the tail. Once that moment occurred, the rest of the ground roll took just a few seconds, and we were climbing through 600 feet agl by the end of the runway without much effort on my part.

In The Air

Slipping over the ridge to the south of the airport, we found a practice area to climb to 3,000 feet msl—more than 1,500 feet above the valley floor—for airwork. From a cruise climb power setting of 22.8 manifold pressure and 2,300 rpm, I tested out a few steep turns, dipping the Cub-familiar cross-brace bars to the horizon, to the left through 360 degrees, and then to the right.

The cable-actuated flight controls felt relatively smooth and the grip on the stick sat naturally in my right hand. Electric trim on the top of the stick also came readily to hand, though even in the left turn, I didn’t need much. I noted the improvement over legacy Cubs in aileron response—CubCrafters updated the airfoil and relocated the aileron hinge points to good effect. I pulled the throttle back for some slow flight to learn for myself the Carbon Cub’s benign low-speed handling characteristics, and flew through those shallower turns with a smile. Feeling warmed up, we flew into a stall series, starting with a power-off configuration and full flaps—the last notch I found a bit sticky to get to from the lever high in the left side of the cockpit. I’m sure I just need the right touch, developed with more time (yes, please). True to form, the FX3 wouldn’t really break in the approach-to-landing stall—it just mushed straight ahead with good aileron authority and airspeed below 45 mph (39 kias), as expected. The departure stall took a lot of nose-up attitude, but presented a fairly mild experience overall.

For my initial landings, we returned to the airport—the last pavement I’d see for the day. Slowing to 85 mph (74 kias) took little effort—this is not a particularly slick airframe despite its shiny coat—and I found a consistent rhythm coaxing the FX3 to an easy 65 mph (56 kias) on short final. Through a trio of three-point landings in light winds, I tested the FX3’s heavy-duty main landing gear and Alaskan Bushwheels’ tailspring and tailwheel. In some respects, the pavement can be harder on the big soft tires than the dirt. Still, the plush mains and honest control response dampened out any vagaries in my last-six-inches technique.

CubCrafters Carbon Cub EX3/FX3

Price (as tested): Varies

Powerplant: CubCrafters CC363i, 186 hp

Propeller: Hartzell Trailblazer, 2-blade, composite, constant-speed

Seats: 2 

Empty Weight: 1,023 lb.

Max Gross Weight: 2,000 lb.

Useful Load: 977 lb.

Length: 23.3 ft.

Wingspan: 34.2 ft.

Wing Area: 179 sq. ft.

Fuel Capacity: 25 gallons

Max Rate of Climb: 2,400 fpm

Endurance: 5.8 hours at 110 mph/ 96 kias

Range: 765 sm

Max Speed: 141 mph/ 122 kias

Cruise Speed: 135 mph/117 kias @ 75 percent power

Stall Speed (ldg config): 37 mph/ 32 kias

Takeoff Ground Roll: Less than 100 ft.

Landing Ground Roll: 155 ft.

The post We Fly: CubCrafters Carbon Cub EX-3 & FX-3 Made for Backcountry appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Follow along as we test out the FX-3—and see what the EX-3 is capable of off-airport, including an honest-to-goodness hayfield—in this snapshot from our Q4 2022 issue of FLYING.

The post We Fly: CubCrafters Carbon Cub FX-3 & EX-3 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The demystification of the building process and the advent of quick-build kits and builder support mean there’s a wider variety of models to choose from for pilots wanting to take advantage of the technology access and added value offered by kit built aircraft. 

But the blurred line has resulted in unintended consequences.

There’s now a significant market for already-built aircraft changing hands to what the kit built industry has termed NBOs—non-builder owners. When a person buys the fruits of another builder’s efforts, they take on that project without the same knowledge as the original builder. With many NBOs coming from backgrounds of only flying, operating, and perhaps owning Part 23-certificated aircraft, the gap in understanding can lead to frustration, wasted money and time—or an accident during the first 10 hours of flight following the purchase.

I interviewed leaders from several experimental OEMs to gather insight into the scope of the market for NBOs, the impact NBOs have had on their business, and what particular concerns they have for those who would approach the purchase of this unique slice of “used” aircraft.

RVs That Started a Movement

Van’s Aircraft, based in Aurora, Oregon, has built a business over the last 50 years on plans-built and kitbuilt aircraft that have become progressively more sophisticated—and at the same time more approachable to build. The dynamic has made it easier for new builders to join the experimental world, and increased sales to the point where there’s now a significant pre-owned market of Van’s RVs for those pilots who want to “skip” the effort involved in crafting an airplane themselves. It’s created a challenge for Van’s: “The used market is our biggest competitor,” says Greg Hughes, director of sales and marketing for Van’s Aircraft. Hughes acknowledges that a pilot who doesn’t want to invest the time it takes to build one can find a wide range of RVs “out there” ready for a new home.

However—caveat emptor. Any homebuilt aircraft will vary widely between instances, depending on the relative skill of the builder, and/or the divergence from the original kit or plan that the builder made during the construction process. Newer models, like the RV-12 and RV-14, come in novice-builder-friendly kits with matched holes and expanded instructions—and the option for some “quick build” kits. Older models evolved from plan-built airplanes, and those like the popular RV-4, where the kit was not as advanced, may offer even more opportunity for variance.

Sonex’s Schaible Weighs In

The smaller network of Sonex owners makes the approach to buying one used a very individualized experience—and because the fleet on the whole is more obviously “one of one.” However, it’s instructive to look at, because it illuminates how varied most homebuilts are—even those from producers like Van’s who have standardized the building experience as much as possible. 

Sonex president and owner Mark Schaible outlines the overarching issue facing NBOs. “Too many people are jumping into experimental aircraft and expecting them to be like certified aircraft,” Schaible says. “You’re trusting yourself to what some other amateur pilot built.” 

Schaible echoes Hughes’s comment on the NBO market: “Our biggest competition isn’t Van’s, it’s used Sonexes.” He compares the RV-4 kit as an example of how kits have evolved, as well—noting that the RV-4 kit was not as advanced at the time of its debut as the current Sonex kits. And, even with the current state of advanced kits, a pilot can’t “shake a box and have an airplane fall out.” 

Another note: While as a buyer, you may be looking at a certificated engine in some homebuilts, a Sonex is likely flying behind an experimental powerplant too, like the AeroConversions’ AeroVee, the most popular choice for Sonex builders. An A&P off the street with only Lycoming or Continental experience won’t be able to assess many homebuilts well for this reason, he says, leaving them open to the potential for error or gaps. 

Schaible’s been with Sonex since 2004, and he stays deeply engaged with leadership in the experimental/ amateur-built (E/AB) industry, serving with the Aircraft Kit Industry Association and on the Experimental Aircraft Association Board Safety Committee—which is a working group of the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee. EAA—founded in 1953—has led the homebuilt community with resources and safety programs that should be required for those wishing to enter into the E/AB space, regardless of whether the pilot builds or buys their way in. 

“You’ve got to engage the builder network,” he says, in order to help mitigate a devastating accident trend that has blossomed in the past five years among NBOs. The accident rate for E/AB aircraft overall is highest in the first 10 hours of flight—for what should be the obvious reason of testing a new build and engine in concert. 

However, the NTSB and EAA have identified that the accident rate for NBOs in the first 10 hours of ownership rivals that for the initial Phase I testing—and may even surpass it. A new owner not intimately familiar with the airplane may make assumptions about the quality of its manufacture, sometimes with catastrophic results. 

EAA’s vice president of advocacy and safety, Sean Elliott, weighs in. “We encourage people to do a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the aircraft they are interested in buying, including getting subject matter experts to look at the overall build quality and how well the airplane has been maintained—those who have a maintenance background and can do a proper pre-buy. 

“EAA stresses the importance of proper transition training in any new type…[you] can hire a qualified instructor who has flown that type before and could help you perform the actual test cards. We intend to release checklists and programs, including flight test cards, aimed at the second-owner community so as a person acquires a ‘new-to-them’ amateur-built aircraft, they can go out and perform those tests and develop their own operating handbook and learn the aircraft correctly before they start operating it.”

Composite Concerns 

Buying a Lancair, Glasair, or other primarily composite airplane on the pre-owned market involves a bit more rolling of the dice than for other types—because these hot rods require both special care during the building process and can be nearly impossible to properly inspect without partially destroying the airframe. There just aren’t inspection panels in the same sense on a composite aircraft as you would find on one crafted from aluminum. Mike Schrader, director of sales and marketing for Epic Aircraft, held a similar role with Lancair International from 1992 to 2007, primarily within the kit side of the company but also in the certified Columbia Aircraft division. He’s been with Epic since 2012, during the development of the owner-assist-build Epic LT into the Part 23-certificated E1000 GX. 

“I have been entirely in sales but witnessed the construction of the airframes,” says Schrader. “The Epic process was entirely built here in our factory so all the bonding and assembly was done under our direct supervision or by our technicians.”

According to Schrader, it’s crucial to know the builder and their documented build process—especially when dealing with composites. A robust builder-assist program exists for many high-performance experimentals. “Many of the manufacturers have or had a fast build program where much of the crucial bonding was done at the factory.” The manufacturer will have ways to help the builder during the layup process—both in construction and quality assurance—so that a future owner can have more confidence in the quality of the construction.

A CubCrafters’ Take

Vice president of sales and marketing Brad Damm has been with CubCrafters—the company founded in 1980 to make Piper Super Cubs better—since July 2013. In 2004, CubCrafters introduced a Part 23-certificated version, the Top Cub. However, CubCrafters’ greater success has been with the Sport Cub (introduced in 2006) and the Carbon Cub SS (introduced in 2007). Both are offered in subsequent versions in an array of builder-assist and kit aircraft, as well as factory-built SLSAs. Damm has looked at a lot of pre-owned Carbon Cubs and Sport Cubs in his role, especially since the company has a robust trade-in business with its owner-builder base. There’s even a page dedicated to pre-owned aircraft on the CubCrafters website. He shares what he’s learned about buying an already-built, amateur-built aircraft with FLYING.

“CubCrafters is one of the few aircraft manufacturers that offers similar aircraft in both certified and experimental categories, and the experimental category aircraft we offer include both kitbuilt and factory builder-assist airplanes,” Damm says. “We also take experimental aircraft in on trade, or directly purchase experimental aircraft for resale. I’ve probably bought and sold a couple hundred different E/AB category aircraft.” Damm also focuses on the builder responsible for the airplane’s construction. 

“It is key to learn as much about the builder as possible. Builders have varying levels of experience, along with a lot of freedom in how their experimental aircraft are constructed. Generally, first builds are rougher than second, third, or later projects from the same builder. First builds are also where we often see the more radical design choices. Later, when an amateur builder gets more experience, he or she tends to learn what works and doesn’t, makes fewer mistakes, and does better fit and finish work. 

“I am a little more cautious [with a first-time builder], and spend a little more time on the pre-buy,” Damm says. “We look more closely at the aircraft before we make an offer. If an aircraft is from a well-known, experienced builder, or an established factory builder-assist program,” it involves less risk and brings a higher price.

Focus on the Pre-Buy

Damm continues, “Once as much of the aircraft’s history has been learned as possible…it really helps if the pre-buy is done by someone experienced in the type of aircraft being purchased.” In fact, he favors a person experienced in the type over an everyday A&P. “Because there is so much builder and owner judgment involved in the construction, modification, and maintenance of E/AB aircraft, I would rather have an experienced owner/builder do the pre-buy than a general A&P that doesn’t have specific knowledge of the type. Unlike with certified aircraft, it can be less about referencing an aircraft maintenance manual from the OEM, and more about knowing the peculiarities of a specific model of experimental Carbon Cub, Van’s RV, or Glasair.” 

However, Damm still sees a lot of opportunity for those pilots who approach the market carefully. “Keep an open mind,” he says. “A huge benefit of experimental-category aircraft is the freedom you have as the new owner to modify the aircraft to your own tastes and preferences. It’s way easier and a lot cheaper to update avionics, refresh interiors, and add features to experimental airplanes than it is with certified aircraft. 

“Therefore, even if the airplane isn’t perfect to start with—maybe it’s a little dated but was well put together, has good structure, and comes with good builder logs and other documentation—it might be a great starting point for a new owner. I look at the potential the aircraft has at least as much as I look for problems or defects. A new prop, maybe some different landing gear or tires, perhaps updated avionics or new upholstery, and you might just have the perfect aircraft for your preferences and mission, and a lot more affordably than you think.” 

Damm sums it up: “The best advice is to go slow, learn as much as you can, and keep an open mind.” 

The post Buying Experimental Aircraft, Demystified appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

One advantage to flying an LSA is that they can be flown with a sport pilot certificate, with only a valid driver’s license needed as proof of medical competency. While flight training prices vary throughout the country, it is generally accepted that a sport pilot ticket can be earned for about half the cost of a private pilot certificate.

Let’s take a look at some of the LSAs that are available in the U.S. market today.

The Major Players

For efficient flying that comes with spectacular ramp appeal, Bristell’s Classic LSA is one of the best looking in this category. Owners can see great performance numbers and fuel mileage behind a variety of available Rotax engines, and with a heavy-duty wing spar suitable for flight training and comfortable seating for two, this model makes a great cross-country flyer. 

Tecnam’s Astore looks impressive on the ramp or in the air and is offered with an analog panel at the base price with optional avionics packages, including either a Dynon SV1000 or Garmin G3X panel. A Rotax 912 ULS engine allows the Astore to easily cruise at the 120 knots calibrated airspeed (kcas) LSA limit on about 4.5 gph fuel burn. 

Sling’s LSA is a proven design with numerous world circumnavigation flights completed by a range of pilots, and the model delivers “highly responsive” flight controls that “give it the distinct qualities of a fighter jet,” according to Sling. A range of 750 nm comes from the Rotax 912 ULS or 912 iS powerplant, and a refined interior and avionics from Garmin round out the Sling’s standard equipment list. 

Other best sellers are Flight Design’s F2 and CubCrafter’s Carbon Cub SS. A single 10-inch Dynon SkyView display anchors the glass panel of the F2 and “sport seats” assure a pleasant ride for short hops or long flights. An electric pitch trim system and a full array of Whelen LED exterior lighting has helped fill Flight Design’s order book. 

For serious backcountry fun, the Carbon Cub SS is hard to beat. With a takeoff distance of 60 feet in perfect conditions claimed by the factory and a leisurely 32-knot stall speed, this model will get its lucky owners into the smallest of off-airport strips when STOL performance is required. A Titan CC340 180 hp engine up front delivers where it counts.

Amphibian LSAs

Dominating the light sport amphibian market are two very popular models, the Icon A5 and SeaRey Elite SLSA. Both provide those seeking fun in the air and on the water with well-finished, capable airframes, and the latest in glass avionics. 

Icon’s A5 is perhaps the most dramatic design on the LSA market—with an interior that looks like it was lifted from an exotic automobile built by hand in an Italian hill town. The line between aircraft and automobile is blurred, and with folding wings making the A5 trailerable, this fun ride has become popular in recent years. 

While styled in a more traditional way, SeaRey’s Elite SLSA has been a consistent seller for years and offers lucky owners a well-built airframe and plenty of power to operate in high and hot environments. With a spirited 350-foot water takeoff run and 1,100 fpm rate of climb behind a turbocharged 115 hp Rotax 914 ULS engine, the Elite gets in and out of most any lake or waterway. 

A Few Global Surprises

One of the most important attributes of LSA manufacturers worldwide has always been their ability to innovate. And because this niche of aviation is extremely popular in the European Union where the types are flown as “ultralights,” there are dozens of makers producing beautiful LSAs that are made “across the pond” and imported into the U.S. market. 

Take the Viper SD4 from Czech-Republic maker Tomark Aero. From the slick lines of the all-metal airframe to a seriously well-developed interior, the SD4 could be the best-looking LSA you’ve probably never heard about until now. Another contender for that title is the JMB Aircraft VL3 series, currently certificated under the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regs for ultralights. Certain versions can be operated in the U.S. under the S-LSA rules, or in the experimental/exhibition category. 

Another make/model that will make you say, “Why haven’t I ever heard of this airplane before?” is the Fusion 212 SLSA manufactured by Magnus Aircraft. This Hungarian-built SLSA is as good as it gets in LSA styling, but underneath that sleek skin, a big surprise is waiting. Due to a very strong airframe, the Fusion 212 became the first and only SLSA to be certified by the FAA for upset recovery training, intentional spins, and basic aerobatics (+6/-3 Gs). This adds a valuable layer of training functionality to this fuel-efficient SLSA, making the 212 attractive to flight schools.

Most Affordable LSAs

When the light sport category was created by the FAA in 2004, it was one of the most significant changes to regulations in the agency’s history. One aspect of the then-new “LSA” and “sport pilot” aircraft and pilot certification categories was that there would be a vast number of very affordable new airplanes coming into the marketplace. In reality, most LSAs today are loaded with glass panels and features buyers desire, which has driven base prices up. There are, however, a few models that still carry a base price under $90,000, so let’s take a look at two of them. 

One of the most attractive buys for a new SLSA is the Pipistrel Alpha Trainer, a well-equipped machine with a base price of $88,443. The Alpha Trainer is a great buy at that price, owing to its long list of standard features that include a Rotax 912 UL2 80 hp, four-stroke carbureted engine, Garmin GTR 200 radio with built-in intercom, Garmin GTX 335 transponder with ADS-B out, a Garmin Aera 660 GPS, and a standard ballistic parachute rescue system. 

Because the Alpha Trainer is meant to handle the daily abuse of hard landings thrown at it by new student pilots, the airframe is tough and durable. With its 13.2-gallon fuel tank, owners will see around 380 miles of range (with reserves) at normal cruise speeds of just under 110 knots. 

Also in the sub-$90,000 price range is the BushCat from SkyReach. The BushCat was designed to handle the rugged African bush country with a design made for easy assembly and repair in remote areas. For a very attractive $87,500 base price, the ready-to-fly BushCat SLSA offers a lot of features you might not expect in this price range, including full flight controls, a strong aluminum tubular frame, a 24-gallon “crack safe” fuel tank, and height-adjustable seats. Power for the BushCat comes from either the Rotax 912 UL 80 hp or Rotax 912 ULS 100 hp engine, and with its strong “bush country” pedigree, dropping in next to a pristine stream in Idaho or Montana to catch your dinner suits the BushCat well. 

Build It Yourself

For those pilots who are skilled in engineering—or at least eager to learn—and know their way around a shop full of tools, building an experimental/amateur-built (E/AB) kit airplane that can be flown with a sport pilot certificate might be the best way to reduce base price while receiving maximum performance. 

Kitfox Aircraft makes several versions of kits for sport pilots such as their Super Sport, Speedster, and STOL STi, which delivers a remarkable 175-foot landing roll. All three can be built for an average build time of about 1,000 hours, according to the factory. Zenith Aircraft also makes some well-proven kits that can be flown by sport pilots, including the CH650, CH701 STOL, and CH750 Cruzer. With a 100-foot takeoff and 125-foot landing, Zenith’s CH750 STOL is popular among builders with eyes on the backcountry. 

The RV-12iS E/AB kit from Van’s Aircraft delivers the builder/owner with a solid performer that is also produced from the factory as a fully built SLSA. Like the entire RV line from Vans, it is not uncommon to see an RV-12iS pilot sporting that famous “RV grin” because of the model’s nimble handling.

MOSAIC: A Question Mark

The FAA is now working on its Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates (MOSAIC) regulations rewrite, and while details remain to be fully spelled out, it is believed that the final rule will open up what makes/models of airplanes could be flown with a sport pilot certificate. If the current weight and speed limits are expanded, it could mean that larger, faster, and more capable four-seat airplanes—like a Cessna 152 or 172, or a Piper Cherokee—could be flown with a sport pilot certificate. The FAA is working towards a December 2023 deadline on MOSAIC, after which the impact to the LSA market will be seen.

The post Light Sport Makes the Mission Fun appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I took the microphone—a breather from my duties as crew chief for Steve Henry—with Juan Browne (from the @blancolirio channel on YouTube). The grandstand fans and live streamers received the play by play as the Straight and Level Television documentary film crew followed along to help tell the story of the fastest growing segment of general aviation. 

Racers Take Your Marks

Pilots lined up on the recently graded dirt track going head-to-head down the 2,000-foot course after the famous “3-2-1, See ya!” signal given by STOL Drag organizer Kevin Quinn to launch their aircraft toward the turn-around point. Several pilots quickly learned that at Reno’s altitude of 5,050 feet msl, their aircraft were not performing as well as they would have liked and this—coupled with a density altitude) of 6,500 feet—meant that much more ground distance was used up before they typically lifted their wheels from the ground. 

In some cases, the taxiway that crossed the track had to be used for a launching ramp to get into ground effect as the heavier Cessna 182s and lower-powered light aircraft were eating up much more ground than they were used to. Many pilots were making adjustments to their aircraft to try and compensate. 

The 2021 reigning champion Toby Ashley did not show this year, robbing Steve Henry (his toughest rival last year) of the chance to demonstrate his upgrades against Sarge.

Tim Schelhorn debuted his new aircraft #73 Psycho Billy—a CubCrafters Carbon Cub which was meticulously built for this style of racing—in the gold bracket. However, being so new, bugs popped up preventing him from running it to its full potential. He still performed well enough to secure the No. 2 spot in the gold bracket over #48 Eddie Sanches in Devil Girl—who worked his way through the entire field to secure the No. 3 spot in the gold bracket. 

• READ MORE: Outlaw STOL Competition Heats Up Out West

Psycho Billy will definitely be an airplane to watch at the upcoming STOL Drag World Championships during the High Sierra Fly-in at the Dead Cow Dry Lake in October.

Another new aircraft on the scene was #85 LunaC—or Luna for short—another custom CubCrafters Carbon Cub built and flown by Cathy Page. She was still learning its intimate flight characteristics, which are vastly different from the Piper Clipper she flew last year. 

A Section 3 Spectators favorite was #66 Big Tuna, the Zenith 701 STOL flown by Jon Hakala at Reno, for various reasons. The  #221 of Brian Steck, a beautifully painted and meticulously polished Legend Cub, got a taste of the desert when a fist-sized rock was kicked up by his tires and sent through his horizontal stab, which was quickly (albeit temporarily) repaired.  

A great time was had by all as the STOL Drag racers were the first class to qualify and race in the mornings throughout the week. This was fantastic, allowing for the tailwheel aircraft not to have to fly with a tailwind in either direction for their runs. However, the sun in the morning shone directly in the eyes of the pilots on the first half of the run, making it difficult to judge the line they had to land across, causing more scratches than at any previous event. But, that’s racing! 

In the end, Steve Henry’s turbocharged Yamaha engine on the Wild West/Just Aircraft Highlander—#44, Yee-Haw—was the airplane to beat, with its screaming 10,000-plus rpm echoing throughout the stands and hangars at the far end of the field. The noise drew people to watch this most unusual-sounding aircraft. 

The slogan of “under a minute to win it” proved true, as 59 seconds was the time to beat at this altitude. Steve broke the minute time solidifying him as the 2022 National STOL Drag Gold Champion at Reno. Congratulations to all.

Results:

1. Steve Henry #44, Highlander

2. Tim Schelhorn #73, Carbon Cub

3. Eddie Sanches #48, Highlander

4. Bo Ellis #80, custom Legend Cub

5. Harry Beaupre #27, Kitfox 

6. Hal Stockman #3, Rans

7. Ty Ferkin #22, Kitfox 

8. Brian Steck #221, Legend Cub

9. Kevin Palmer #21, Kitfox

10. Cathy Page #85, Carbon Cub

11. Collin Caneva #43, Carbon Cub

12. Jon Hakala, Zenith

13. Brent Womack, Rans

14. Dave Kerley, Highlander

15. Tony Sanches, Superstol 

16. Joe Dory, Custom Pacer

The post Reno’s STOL Drag Class Offers a Great Community Feeling appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Warren Grobbelaar, No. 46, had a very large following in his home state of Florida. He had an impressive performance in his polished Cessna 180—although it was hard to hear his actual distances from the announcers over the large chanting section yelling “WAR-REN! WAR-REN! WAR-REN!” which was reminiscent of the Section 3 crowd at the Reno Air Races.

The crowds were packed with energy as familiar aircraft took the line waiting to be released for takeoff. The stands were full and most of the course’s sidelines were stacked five deep trying to catch a glimpse of the start line. 

As a demo only, there were no class divisions and airplanes were sorted more by their cruise speeds in the pattern to limit an unnecessary amount of go-arounds. There were manufacturer’s demo aircraft mixed with regular STOL competitors, even a powered hang glider and a gyroplane entering the mix for the first time. It was a great exhibition of light sport, experimental, STOL, paramotor, and bush aircraft. 

Although this was not a competition, there were still measurements taken for both takeoff and landing. 

Results of each day were posted, but generally, the scores were consistent with the first day’s totals Tuesday, with a few exceptions.

One of those notable exceptions was Steve Henry, No. 44, who—after already being in first place—on his last landing Tuesday, broke an axle, causing him to go onto his nose, breaking his prop, and damaging a carbon fiber leading edge slat. The incident caused the famous Yee-Haw 6 to miss the following day’s activities.

Jon Humberd in his Zenith Super 701 was biting at Henry’s heels all week, and he took the top spot in Henry’s absence. Humberd always has impressive takeoffs after beeping his horn for the crowd. But this week, he shortened them even more and added impressive landings to his bag of tricks. Humberd will definitely be one to keep an eye on for the rest of the season.

Nineteen-year-old Jayden Newman graced us with her presence, returning to National STOL with a beautiful Patriot Cub that she had never flown before. She donned her flight suit, hopped in, and beat all of her previous STOL scores in STOL. Newman started STOL right after getting her pilot certificate at 17 years old, then left to complete her schooling and acquire her ratings to fly corporate jets, which she now does full time.

Seeing her return to STOL even more polished was heartwarming for all that know her. She’s expected to compete more regularly now that Patriot Cub is building a custom airplane for her.

The post Husky National STOL Returns to the Grass Strip at Paradise City appeared first on FLYING Magazine.