redneck

I have built a couple of Sig kits, LT-40 and 4-Star-40. I love flying them and have many hours on each. Now I am looking for an easy-to-build .40-size Cub. Which is easiest: Great Planes, Goldberg, Sig, etc.... ?? (No ARF's Please)

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I haven't built or flown a Sig, but I hear they are very good.

Between the Goldberg and the GP, I would have to pick the Goldberg for both building AND flying.

Whichever way you go, I HIGHLY recommend the clipped wing version.

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

Sig 1/5 scale is all laser cut.
http://www.sigmfg.com/cgi-bin/dpsmar...FV4.html?E+Sig

John

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

Man I hate Sig's web site. Try Towers for a description you can link to.
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXBDF1&P=7

redneck

Why clipped-wing ?

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Here's why the clipped wing is better:

When the original Cub was designed, they used a squirrel in a cage for an engine. It needed a HUGE wing in order to generate enough lift to fly - It would be like flying a 40 size Cub with a 25 engine.

Later, pilots realized that if you put a real engine in it, it performed MUCH better, AND with the extra power, they didn't need all of the extra drag provided by that HUGE wing, so they literally "Clipped" a few feet off of each side.

The biggest problem with the big wing is that due to it's length, it generates a lot of Adverse Yaw. you can actually see it yaw to the left in a right-hand turn (And vice versa).

The clipped wing eliminates the excess yaw and will allow it to do some very nice aerobatics, but the plane will still float like a trainer.

jagnweiner

My Feedback: (1)

I've built a Great Planes 60 size Cub and it went together very well and flies nicely. When I was in high school, I unsuccessfully tried to build the Sig 1/6 scale Cub, but quit after doing the wing and part of the fuselage. From what I hear, the Sig 1/5 is a completely different story and a good kit. The Sig kits have more detail than the GP kits. If you want to learn more about the GP kits, find them on the Tower Hobbies website and download the manual.

I built mine with the full wing. The adverse yaw is a bit of an issue, but in my opinion is part of the charm of a Cub. With differential aileron set up, it's not too bad. It does make for difficult transport (90"). I may build a clipped wing for it someday.

-Scott

msu68stang

My Feedback: (7)

I am finishing the GP 60 Cub and will agree that it is easy to build but not that scale. If I had it to do over I'd buy the sig kit. I'll probably keep the GP cub for a float plane.

powertoys

My Feedback: (2)

Because they can't fly a standard Cub. The Cub is a ground loopin, adverse yaw havin, constant climbin, high wind hatein, squirrelly tail, not wanting to land airplane. You JUST GOTTA LOVE IT as only a mama could. It took a few cracked wing tips, a broken rudder and several props before I got it all figured out. If you don't know how to use a rudder, learn now before you get that thing in the air. The biggest thing I had to learn was don't let it land, make it.

Mike

jagnweiner

My Feedback: (1)

Can't argue with any of that.

-Scott

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

That's another good point.

The Sig kit is very scale. This can be good or bad.

If you WANT a scale-looking Cub, the Sig is the way to go. But if true scale is not important to you, the Sig kit will mean extra work for something you don't need.

I'm not a scale buff, so from 10 feet away, they both look the same to me.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

I think Powertoys been watching me fly. I built the 1/5 Sig last winter, everything PT says is true, but because it's a Cub, not because it's a Sig. The Sig is all laser cut; The fuselage is a combination of slab side construction (lower part) and former and stick (upper part), it's all tabbed, fits perfectly, and you'd have to try to build it crooked. The scale is very nice, the right side window hinges up, the door drops down; the servos sit behind where the rear seat goes, so they're out of the way if you want to detail the cabin, but fairly accessable. It's a pull-pull rudder, everything is included for it. The wire gear is durable, but if you really want to take advantage of this Cub's nice scale lines, put a set of Robart or Wallace gear on it.

I built mine as full span, and even at 2-1/2 pounds more than what Sig suggested as the weight range, it still floats. The adverse yaw is easily overcome by programming about 40% rudder in with the ailerons and it makes a beautiful coordinated turn, but a standard bank will have the tail dropping to the low side a bit, but full-size Cubs do it,too. If you want some aerobatic ability, definitely clip the wings, and the Sig plans have all that laid out for you. The wings attach via tubes, and the struts are FUNCTIONAL, can't fly the plane without them.

A .65 Saito almost completely fits in the cowl inverted, a .72 will fit, it's a tad shorter than the >65, and would give you all the aerobatic power you need; both engines will turn a scale 14 inch prop. Mine will cruise at 1/4-1/3 throttle and take off at 1/2. I can't say enough good about Sig's Cub, I love mine. It kitbashes pretty well, too, mine is modified to a L-4 (most of the reason it's heavier). You can't go wrong with this one.

powertoys

My Feedback: (2)

khodges,

You are correct, I was not bashing (no pun intended) on the Sig kit. In fact I have to agree with you that the Sig would be the better of the kits to build if you want the extras and scale affects. Keep the wood frames after you punch out the parts or make paper templates before you get her all together, no matter how experienced you are, you are going to have a bad day with a Cub sooner or later. In my case it was sooner (a couple times over). On a side note, for the covering I found that Worldtex fabric is just about perfect as any iron on fabric covering could be. Not only does it look the most authentic (21st is too shinny or plastic looking don't like it). But that stuff made me look like an expert at covering. I haven't done the fabric and dope treatment, that stuff seems way too heavy. Not that a Cub can't handle weight.

Mike

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

Powertoys- that's what I covered mine in-Koverall and dope. It looks like it would be heavy as hell when you put it on, but after the stuff cures, it's surprisingly light and tough. I've gotten to be semi-expert at repairing mine, mostly runway rash on the wingtips, NBD, but most recently (Past Dec 1st), I had a severe stupid attack and forgot to hook up the aileron servos (I was running my mouth to my flying buddies). I got to see what it was like to fly a Cub without ailerons (to make it worse, one was at about 15 degree right bank) I managed to keep it right side up until I got back to the runway, and stalled on my approach, it hit on the mains and chin and the impact tore the wings off at the root (pulled the end rib out on both of them) and cracked the angled uprights along the sides of the windshield. Took about 2 weeks to fix, but you really have to look hard to see the repair. That's one real good thing about the Koverall, you can dope it on and the edges blend right in. I started out with the plane at 9-1/2 pounds, it's probably past 10 by now, still flies great. The .65 saito just putters by, I've got an older style billet aluminum muffler on it , sounds great

cheechukranch

Will a OS .70 surpass (not surpass II) fit in the cowl without cutting?

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

No, but the standard thing to do is to mount it sideways, let it stick out, and install the dummy engine on the other side.

Once it's airborne, you'll never noyice it (Unless, of course, you're a real scale buff)

Looking at Rednecks original question - Which was, "Which Cub BUILDS the easiest" I would recommend the Goldberg.

Build-wise, it's on a par with the GP, but I think it's a notch up when it comes to flying

Gollywock

150&180 H.P. Super Cubs have the same airfoil (USA35B) and wing span as the original J3. The reason people clip the wings (Cub, Monocoupe etc.) was for aerobatics. Jim

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

I'd have to kinda sorta agree with Nanook of the North (Minn Flyer) The Goldberg is probably on par with GP to build , probably flies better, but if you're after scale, go Sig. I don't know how the OS 70 measures, compared to the Saito, but my .65 is 3-3/4 in. from the center of the prop shaft to the forward edge of the valve covers (the part that sticks out of the cowl), and at that distance back from the flange for the prop, it would have to be about 3-1/4 to fit inside. It is easier to not worry about it and just stick the motor, uh, engine, on sideways, but us scale freaks like things all nice and tidy and hidden inside. Even if you did have to cut the cowl, it's down under the "chin" and not very noticeable at all, UNLIKE THE BIG GAPING CHUNK (sorry) that you have to excise from the pristine and HIGHLY VISABLE (sorry) side of the cowl, if you do it , ahem, the OTHER way

If you notice the "skint" place on the oil cooler, it's made of hobby ply and is sort of a sacrificial detail, because when it lands and tips up on the nose every now and again, that's the part that takes the grief; it reinforces the cowl and also helps protect the valve covers, and it's easily replaceable.

powertoys

My Feedback: (2)

That saito is a great engine for pulling the Cub. My first Cub was 1/5 scale with an 80" wingspan. I had a Magnum 52 FS on it. I must admit, it was low on power. But it proved one thing to me, you almost can not under power a cub. This coming from a guy who put a YS-61(long) two stroke with tuned pipe on his 40 size Big Stick.

Mike

redneck

I think I have it narrowed down to 2 possibilities: Either the Sig 1/5 or the Carl Goldberg Anniversary.
Does anyone know if the Goldberg kit is also laser cut?

WacoNut

I have built 2 Goldberg Cubs, they were not laser cut but that was about 10 years ago. I am getting ready to order a Sig 1/5 scale in a week or so. If you want a more scale looking bird go with the Sig. I am sure the building time will be longer but you will be much happier with the finished results. The Goldberg is a stand-off (way Off) scale. You can make it look good but it takes alot of modifying. The Goldberg is a tough airplane and it does fly very well!!!
Good Luck!!
Anthony

beenie

My Feedback: (9)

Anthony,
I definatly agree that the Goldberg Cub is tuff. It is built like a masonry outhouse, although it is a little heavy. Seems like it would go together easily and the website seems to indicate that they are now laser cut. I don't know about the 1/5 scale Sig one, but the 1/6 scale cub of theirs requires a little skill and patience to put together. The new 1/5 scale one looks like it would be a little easier. It also looks a lot better than the Goldberg one, IMHO. Don't discount Sig's lighter construction as weaker, though. Mine has had some pretty bad ecnounters with the ground and has faired well.
Ben

WacoNut

beenie,
I agree about the Goldberg, I once flew with my battery pack too low (stupid)and lost the plane. It climbed and circled for 12 mmin until it ran out of fuel, it had to be at least 6,000ft altitude. After the engine died it glided in a big circle and finally came down 3 miles up the road and hit the only object in a farm field, a farm truck with plywood bed sides. The engine went through a 3/8 sheet of plywood and the plane dropped to the ground. The next week the cub was flying again
It looks like the 1/5 Cub is a much improved kit over the 1/6 and should make for a very fun build. I have purchased a set of Bob Nelitz 1/3 scale plans that I will start on as soon as I finish the 1/5. All I need is a UPS truck full of Balsa wood
Later!!
Anthony

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

There is no comparison between Sig's 1/5th and 1/6th kits.....go with the 1/5th but remember to mark the parts BEFORE they fall out of the sheet

Jerry

donkey doctor

Hello; there are so many cubs around here that I decided early in my flying career not to own or fly a cub. As my duties as club instructor I have been able to fly 5 or 6 new cubs a year since then. I still haven't built or owned a cub, although I have developed a respect for them. I was given a 1/3 scale Pilot cub and 10 yards of 'CUB' Yellow to cover it with a few years ago, but I just haven't got around to it yet. I have flown every kind of cub known to man (except a full scale one) and find all of them quite similar in all sizes, smaller ones are snappier, bigger ones are gentler. The most popular cubs around here are the Great Planes 60 size ones, we hae three of them around here, all new and all great flyers, second would be the Goldberg anniversary cub, with three of them also. There's not too much to choose between them, as far as flying is concerned, both are great floaty reliable and visible planes. The GP version uses less plywood, and (I hear) a little easier to build. I guess I would go with the best deal I could find.

On another note, a veteran builder/flyer recently built a cub using the GP cub 40 size outline, He used his own building methods, and only used the plans for the outline. I have flown the plane and it is a delightful float flyer. The thing that sets it apart from most cubs is that he uses a Surpass 26 for power. It takes off as quick as any other cub and flies just fine on the little 26 four stroke. I'm sure that it is quite a bit lighter then Great Planes had planned on, so the potential is there, and the design is well proven.