cwhite

My Feedback: (42)

I'm wanting to build a 40 size clipped wing cub and have narrowed it down to two kits. The Sig 1/5 scale or the Goldberg?
I've heard great things about the sig and I like laser parts, fiberglass cowl, two piece wing, etc., but I've also heard that the fuselage area is week around the wing attachment area and I'm not sure about a flat bottom wing on the clipped version.
I hear the Goldberg is really durable and easy to build, but isn't as scale.
Which would make the better clipped cub? Also, could you recommend an engine for either one?
Thanks,
Chris

waagbuck

My Feedback: (1)

Don't hate me for not answering your question as to whether Sig or the Goldberg cub kit is better. I have built two of the great planes 40-size cub kits, one of which I built with the clipped wing. It's a great kit - easy to build and the finished product looks and flies great. If there's nothing else to distinguish it from the others, the barn-door ailerons look a lot better than the strip ailerons on the goldberg cub.

Cub Man

My Feedback: (50)

Personally I like the Goldberg Cub, it’s like a Timex, it takes a beating and keeps on ticking. Yes it’s looks like a cub but it’s not as scaled as others are. I have one called wild thing, Wing is shorter then the clipped version with an old OS 60FP Nothing like a Cub doing a knife edge pass down the field

Jerry Sigur

I've built the Goldberg and GP, but not the Sig. I have flown all three.
The Sig is structurally weaker than the other two. The strongest and to
me the best flying one is definitely the Goldberg. (I won't argue the point,
it's just my opinion.) Not hard to modify it to make it more scale, I did this
with my last one, barn door ailerons, etc.
A 70 four stroke works exceptionally well on this size cub, smaller engines
can be used but the 70 allows full aerobatic use of the clipped wing.
Again, just my 2 cents.
Jerry

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

Depends on how much scale detail, or how faithful to scale you want. I've seen the GP Cub, nice plane and durable, and the Goldberg, a bit more scale and also durable, but my vote is for the SIG. I've built one of them, and they are very close to scale in all respects, they have functional door and window on the right, the wing is two-piece with tubes to support the roots and the struts are functional and necessary to fly the plane. The plans show both ways to build, full span or clipped wing. It is a builder's kit, the fuse has a lot of modular construction but the wings, tail and rear deck are pretty well stick built. The 1/5 scale is now laser cut, pieces fit perfectly. The wire landing gear is durable and builds fairly easily, but if you want a really nice looking plane, spend the extra bucks ($110) on scale gear from Robart, or if you can find them, William Wallace ( a little cheaper, more scale, but not quite as durable as Robart). Here's a picture of mine, modified to a L-4. The gear is Wm. Wallace, the cover is Sig Koverall and dope, motive power is an inverted .65 Saito, but if i had to do it over I would put in a .72, only because it will fit completely within the cowl. The .65 is a tad taller and the tips of the valve covers are visible in one of the photos. The .72 would give you a bit better aerobatic performance with the clipped wings. Mine is full span.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

More- About the center section being weak. This may be, but if so, it is because Sig stressed scale over strength. It is an easy thing to modify, just add 1/4 inch round hardwood dowels to the upright pieces that support the center section. The presence of the door may have something to do with strength, but it still can take a pretty good licking, as evidenced by the many ground loops and hard landings I made while learning to fly mine. I was wooried, also, that because of my modifications, I had weakened the center section and cabin, but I found out the hard way a couple of weeks ago that my center section is actually stronger than the wing roots, which tore out of the wings when I landed on the nose after managing to return to the field after taking off without hooking up the aileron servos after I attached the wings. How stupid am I? They're already repaired, took about 4 hours per wing.. As far as the flat bottom wing goes, full size Cubs have a flat bottom wing, I don't think it will affect your aerobatics too much; after all, it's a CUB, not a Cap or Extra.
Another comment about strength of design. One of our "old timers" has four Cubs of different makes and scales, been flying them for years. He says it's inherent in the Cub design, and not the kit, because of all the window area, there's not as much space for a strong sidewall under the wing. I've also stalled mine straight down from about 75 feet, landed vertically in a kudzu patch with absolutely no damage to my plane. That has to say something for strength, too. here's a couple more pix, look at the dowels on the upright supports for the center section.

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

I started with the GP and it was an easy build and flew like almost all Cubs, I had an OS 70 in mine but it was just A bit over powered for the wing.
The wing folded on both sides when the throttle stuck wide open but there was enough of it left for the plane to sprial into A soft field, engine still at full. Never did anything to the rest of the plane except bend the LG A bit.
It now has A wing from the CG kit that A friend had left over from A crash. It fit very well and the plane still flies just as well as ever.
The 70 four stroke is A great choice for the cliped wing.

cwhite

My Feedback: (42)

Thanks for the great info khodges. I think I'll go for the Sig kit. I like the laser parts, two piece wing and most of all the looks. I've also noticed it has a longer fuse than the Goldberg, by 7 inches. I would think this would make it easier on takeoff. Should I go for the Saito .72 or the .82?
Thanks,
Chris

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

It probably has a bit longer wingspan than the Goldberg also. If you look at the specs on these kits (Goldberg, GP, Sig, and all the others), you'll see differences in length and wingspan, although they may all be called "1/6", or "1/5" etc. That's just the closest fractional size to whatever actual ratio they used when they scaled down full-size dimensions.

I'd go with the .72. My .65 is more than enough power, it will take off at 1/2 throttle and cruise at 1/4-1/3 throttle turning that big scale prop. I use a 14-6 Master Airscrew K-series. The .72 uses a different bore and stroke arrangement and a smaller case than the .65 and it is actually shorter by about 3mm, it should fit completely within the cowl if you mount it inverted. I put a 10 oz. tank in mine and get 12-15 min flights without worrying about it going dry. I think Sig recommended a 12 oz, I'd use it with a .72.

You'll enjoy how this thing builds, just take your time. I covered mine with Sig Koverall and doped it, but Solartex would look really good on it, as would 21st Century fabric. Good Luck, post building pix.

Scar

My Feedback: (3)

I'm going to reply before I read the other replies, because I want to ask a question, rather than contribute information.

My question is "Why do you want a .40 Cub?"

I never wanted a cub, but a club member mentioned his neighbor wanting to sell a framed up Balsa USA ΒΌ scale cub, almost ready to cover and finish, for a hundred bucks. It's a 108" wingspan, and the guy had the struts & landing gear all done, and I had a hundred bucks. I also wanted a plane to break in my 100 Saitos with, because I want them to run great on a P38, inverted.

I coughed up the C-note, bought some rolls of Cub Yellow Super Coverite, and went to work. I found out why the guy had stopped building (he had erred on one wing panel, where the aileron hinges insert, and he had erred in placing the windscreen mounts) and managed to build an aileron, revamp the wing where it mounts, and make a wraparound windshield. After covering it and getting the cowl & engine mounted, I got in about a dozen flights last summer. Nothing to write home about, but it is a fine platform for loafing around the pattern. Anyway, that's why I bought mine, just wondering if you were a Cub fan or what prompted you to choose that subject.

Best wishes,
Dave Olson

jb86

My Feedback: (8)

i've built 3 goldberg cubs, got to be the easiest kit to build and fast. created barndoor ailerons 2 5/8" deep x approx. 17 3/4", starting from rib 6; i'll post how i did if you like. it's a tough aircraft, simple sport scale. the wing is quite strong, no lift struts needed. i use nylon 1/4 bolts. i reinforced the landing gear mounts, added hardwood to thread into. I set up a pull/pull rudder and a split y pushrod on the elev. one thing, even with barn door ailerons it flies more like a trainer than scale. you can fly it without rudder input (get some practice with rudder). some cubs will fall out of the sky if you don't add rudder. clipped wing (built with inboard flaps, need some time to play with that) is my favorite, i think it's easier to handle. does great all around aerobatics with no bad tendencies with os70surpass II, 13x6 (plenty of power for 10 foot take off roll), gotta have a 4 stroke on a cub. looks great w/yellow coverite. mask the lightning bolt, nelson hobby has paint that will stick right to the coverite. 3 3/8 cub wheels look good even though it's not 1/5. my favorite aircraft. i built a gp .60 clipped wing, seemed like a lot more work. what's more beautiful than a yellow cub against a blue sky?

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

Scar, A cub to break in an engine??????????? Even the clipped wing is A loafer in the air. Just wondering??

Scar

My Feedback: (3)

Yeah, seems ideal to me. Loaf around for about 30 flights, get the needles adjusted, and get some idea of the reliability. I'll grant you, that big Cub doesn't put much of a load on the engine, though. Maybe I'll throw it on an Extra or something later, just to do some aerobatics and see how the engine works inverted.

Dave Olson