IFR

My Feedback: (1)

Anyone built and flown the 1/4 scale Balsa USA Cub? What is the scale level? Would appreciate your opinion(s) on the pros and cons of the plane.

Wayne22

My Feedback: (2)

not sure exactly what you are looking for... it is a big model with a lot of wood to be glued together. That in itself demands that an appropriate amount of time be set aside for the building. The cabin top area is fiddly because of the opening doors.

It can be made quite scale but some research and modifications will have to be done.. Here is an example

Out of the box, it flies quite nicely, and is easier to manage than smaller cubs.

As to practical matters, the wing comes in two pieces which make transportation and storage much more manageable, however, set up at the field involves 14 bolts (if you remove the struts each time).

glowplugboy

My Feedback: (17)

....and my vote goes to the SIG 1/4 Scale Cub. Much better production, much better wood, much better instruction manual, simply better all around as a kit. I have a 25 year old Sig Clipped Wing Cub, and it's still as rigid as when a friend built it way back then. And while you are investing, go ahead and spend a buck fifty on some Swenson Specialty scale landing gear.... you won't believe how nice it makes taking off and landing, not to mention the exact scale appearance.
Regards,
Mike

RickVB

My Feedback: (24)

Actually, it's a buck sixty-five

http://www.swensonspecialties.com/Cub_Landing_Gear.html

I second the endorsement; it's expensive, but you definitely get what you pay for. Just remember to slot (not just flat) your axles for the set screws, and use thread lock. I'm experienced at one-wheel landings now...

glowplugboy

My Feedback: (17)

And worth the little extra! Yes, ditto to filing flats on those axles. I did so prior to using the gear. Man, I wouldn't want to try to land a one wheel Cub!

RickVB

My Feedback: (24)

These are really crappy, but this was the approach, and the result, the first time around. I hadn't filed the flat long enough before this. Believe it or not, after filing it long enough to be under the screw, the next day the wheel fell off again! As I said,at that point I filed a *slot* into the axle for the set screw...

RickVB

My Feedback: (24)

And the result... the bare gear eventually dropped and dug in, and the plane nosed over (but not completely, I even managed to kill the engine before the prop hit!)

BigBird1

My Feedback: (4)

Built one about a year ago....
Need lots of room....an 8' building table, lots of patients. Take everything out of the box, lable it put it back in....
Build the "BIG Monster"
Cover with Cub Yellow World Tex. (yards and yards of it..)
Use a Saito 150 for power...with onboard glow lead...
Make up a 15" long balldriver for attatching one wing...a 4" ball driver to attatch the other wing...
Use two servos for elevators

Go to field, put together, start engine, taxie out, rotate, apply a little left rudder, then a little up elevator, listen to croud go "AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"
Priceless


Just 2 cents worth of satisfaction

vanguard

My Feedback: (25)

Doesn't matter what size they are, Cubs are neat to watch. Particularly when flying in a scale manner. A friend of mine has a 1/4 Dynaflite with a G23 gas engine and it flies extremely nice.

xp8103

My Feedback: (16)

I'll throw in for the Sig version as I built one last year. It's a lot of sticks and if you throw in any mods, it makes it longer. There is plenty of institutional knowledge on modifications to it, including a working door. I'll throw some pics in my gallery.

There, some pics of Mr. Ed up in the gallery. Hopefully, she'll look this good again.....
On the Swenson's Specialties gear. I have it on mine. He does some NICE work. I was able to "cover" mine with some Nelson Litefab and pink tape it. The end result was VERY credible. I would suggest throwing away the bungees that they provide. One of mine broke on the first landing. It was replaced with several winds of a number 64 and that held up very well. On the debriefing after the first flights, I changed out the short little screws he provides for longer ones with some larger washers to keep the rubber bands on. They work just fine. In fact, the bungees were a little TOO tight and didn't allow the plane to waddle as it taxied out.. I also took out some of the dihedral.
The stock dihedral doesn't look very scale.
I also modified the first cabin former to eliminate the intrusion into the cabin. Full cockpit. Pilot by Diane. OS 1.6 on the nose.

toucano

I'm building the Sig 1/4 Cub and was thinking of the Robart 690 scale cub gear. It's only $130 - has anyone used it?

Cub Man

My Feedback: (50)

I would recomend the Sig cub any day. Check out my web site for modifications and scale info.

IFR

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks to everyone for their input. I am following the conventional wisdom of the respondents and going for the Sig 1/4 scale Cub. I will also pursue the aftermarket landing gear, whose I don't know yet, still put off with Robart and their rotating retracts I put on my 60 size Corsair. Cub Man I have reviewed and earmarked your web page, a wealth of valuable reference, ideas, and solutions.

Live Wire

Most cub kits fly the same . BSA , SIG, what ever they fly only as good as the dumb thumbs on the ground. Build them wright and they will fly. You can fly a rock if you put enough power on it. J3s were not power full they fly low and slow.

Kregg

My Feedback: (45)

Tucano asked a question about the Robart gear. I've had their gear on 1/4 scale Sig Clipped Cub for a couple of years. I love the gear and how it functions, but it has broken three times. In the past it has broken from a decent cross wind landing when I was in a slight crab. The lateral pressure caused the gear to snap where the cross bars are mounted to the fuse brackets. The cross bars are solid aluminum bar stock, but drilled at the very end for a 4-40 bolt. This does not allow enough material for strength. Robart has sent me two sets free of change, but I doubt they will do it a third time. The last time I manufactured my own thicker aluminum ends to resolve this problem.

Just my experiences........

DMyer

My Feedback: (2)

Well... the man did ask about the Balsa USA Cub.... must have been Sig Cub day as evidenced by the responses! IMHO... there is very little difference in either quality, construction or flying from what I have seen and flown. They are both excellent kits that can be made as scale like as the builder desires. I have the BUSA 1/4 Cub. There are minor building differences... examine both, take your pick and you can't go wrong. I went with the BUSA version because it was less money for the kit.... the basic plane in either kit is mostly "STICKS" and lots of them. What will set your Cub apart from others is how you choose to finish/detail it... a little extra time spent with a quality fabric covering, pinking tape and simulated stitching does wonders. I have a G-23 in mine with JR 4721 servos on all surfaces. It is finished with the entire S T I T S process, tapes and stitching. My plane flys super in a very scale like manner and looks equally good on the ground or in the air! Good luck building and flying your Cub!

BECKERFLY

I HAVE A CUB AND IT FLIES REALLY GOOD ITS NOT AS BIG AS YOURS YOU WILL HAVE A REAL GOOD TIME WITH YOUR CUB

QuarterCub

My Feedback: (2)

I, too, vote for the Sig 1/4 Cub. I got one for a GREAT price, free! You can't beat that kind of value. A few mods and this will be one sweet flying, easy-to-assemble-at-the-flying-field airplane. Modified the fuse for a Quadra 35 (gonna be a tow plane), and plug in wings (own design). Almost ready to cover in 21st Century Cub yellow, but may end up painting and flaming it later on.

Maiden flight at the end of Feb. Stay tuned for pics and info!

AR196

Dan B,

Onto second and a half Sig i/4 clipped wing Cub now.

Flew into a tree with the first one and built a replacement wing, better than the first.

Sold all my R/C stuff and went back to full size (my second Cessna 170B). Bought the first Cub back since I decided that I wanted at least one plane. Of all my giants - Extra, BUSA 1/3 Pup, 1/4 clipped wing Taylorcraft and on and on, it was the Cub that I wanted.

Bought it back sight unseen which was a mistake. It was butchered. So, now I'm on to my second. Also built the Sig 1/6 full wing Cub with a G-Mark .30 twin engine. That was really scale like flight due to minimal power.

Have built several BUSA kits. Like the Sig just a lot more. They appear to be stronger construction. My original Cub, even after the butcher, is over 16 years old now and still strong, following many years of flying.

Neither Sig nor BUSA is exactly scale. Both fly great though, especially on floats.

As for landing gear in a crosswind landing, this is now my full size pilot speaking. You NEVER NEVER land crabbed in a crosswing, unless you've got that Goodyear crosswind landing gear or you want to wreck your plane.

The objective is to land into the wind. When the crosswind makes that impossible, you land pointing straight down the runway with ABSOLUETELY no sideways drift. You do that by cross controlling - aileron into the wind and opposite rudder to hold the nose on the runway heading and prevent flight into the wind. Period.

You know, we say there're two kinds of tailwheel pilots. First, all trycycle types think we're nuts. So that doesn't count. The first type is those who have ground looped. The second is those who are about to. After some 30 years at full size, on taildraggers, me and many others are still in group 2 - and plan on staying there!

Your giant Cub is much the same. Don't let those winds scare you. I've enve flown the 1/4 clipped wing in winds that were just about tearing the wind sock off the pole at the club field. The oglers could not believe the wind these birds can handle once you know they actually can. Strong wind? No problem. Land wing low into the crosswind on one main wheel. Take off staight into the wind. You won't need much distance. It'll be flying in a few feet.

Oh yeh, almost forgot. Make sure you bird is not under powered. My Sig clipped wing would fly on its OS 1.08 at just a couple of clicks above idle throttle with a 15-8 wood Zinger prop.

As the other guys say, these Cubs are a builtiful sight just loafing slowly by at low altitude.

The slightly longer than assembling an ARF build time is worth every minute that it takes. You'll forget all that as soon as you get your giant Cub into the air.

IFR

My Feedback: (1)

AR196
I am a private pilot as well and have landed a few times on one wheel with the wing tip (a Cessna 172 with narrow ridged mains) almost dragging the ground to counteract a strong cross wind. However, using your feet and hands while in a good vantage point to see the plane's relationship to the runway is one thing I have not yet transferred to the RC plane, only been doing RC for a couple of years. My left thumb is not an easy replacement for the feet on the rudder and the vantage point is not the same. For this reason I always try to land RC planes directly into the wind unless the cross wind is very gentle. I plan on putting a Saito 100 twin in the plane, it is currently in a GP 40 size Cub, just a little overpowered. The GP Cub has never flown well, first plane I built, so every flight is a challenge. Incidence, washout, center of gravity, etc. are all correct, the plane is just very unresponsive to any inputs. That is why I want to try a 1/4 scale full wing Cub.

AR196

DanB,

I understand you predicament fully with the left thumb bit. That's why I fly single stick. It's a lot easier to control and cross control when it's all on one hand with a big fat knob that's hard to lose hold of. Those dinky dual sticks shoved around with only one thumb each do not give very precise control. You may try holding each stick between thumb and index finger for better control.

Sorry to hear about your wingtip landing. The one wheel bit does take a bit of practice.

You'll also find that your 1/4 scale bird flies much differently than the smaller version. And if it's responsive you want, go to the clipped wing version. It's still got enough area to float. And it'll easily do a lot more than stooge around the sky. They look great doing snap rolls and outside loops on floats. Just keep the power on!!

AR196

Almost forgot. Here's the other side of the CWC.

Engine is totally cowled. No overheating problems.

Nest time, will adda an opening window and door, and make a two piece wing to get the rear fuse to wing trailing edge shape right. Sig has fudged that quite a bit. Also needs a two piece stab for the gap at the fuse sides.

Started redrawing the plans yesterday. Looks like easy fixes.

Wayne22

My Feedback: (2)

Note that the Balsa USA kit comes with an opening door and window already, and this affects the building sequence compared to the Sig. Once in the air, there is little to tell one from the other...

AR196

Yes, that's true, the Sig and BUSA both fly well and look about the same in the air.

I've seen them both. Seen them both fly. Liked my Sig very much. Had the BUSA plans. Prefered the Sig, even with the extra construction. BUSA is also severely challenged from a scale standpoint. Having built several BUSA and Sig kits, my overall preference is Sig. For other people, it's BUSA. To each his own.

RickVB

My Feedback: (24)

Ar196, would you mind outlining the major (and minor, if you feel like it) scale defects in the BUSA kit? Is the 1/3 kit defective in the same ways? Be as pedantic as you like...