I regularly see guys on forums or in for sale ads talk about how their RV can push 200 kts on about 10 gallons per hour. Cubs of various flavors seem to talk about doing about 100 kts on about 5 gallons per hour. Seems like similar fuel economy, but it just takes you longer in a Cub since the drag starts increasing with speed and you don't get much more for the fuel burn.

Concur?

Depends...

Just saying 'cub' seems to encompass a huge variety of flyers If you are talking PA11 with covered gear legs, 8.00x4 tires and a 74" prop, you might get close to that. If you are flying a more typical boondocker with big wheels, big prop, and big wings, you won't get close to that. Pound for pound ,mile for mile, net net, even a Cessna 180 gets better MPG than a 'bushy' Cub. Even if that Cessna has a big motor in it

Real world fuel consumptions in a typical 'economy cruise' :

Typical big wheeled cub- 88MPH @ 8 GPH = 11 MPG
Typical big engined 180- 159 MPH @ 13 GPH = 12.2 MPG

You will have to look to the Rans / Highlander / Kitfox etc types to get the economy you're looking for, but you will still go slow... none of these backcountry birds are going to approach the RV / Lanceair side of things...

Take care, Rob

The wind is what kills me. I cruised with my groundspeed in the 50's for 5 hours coming home from JC last year it was brutal. If I was in an RV I would have went to 12,500 and still been doing 160kts groundspeed. Might as well have driven there in my truck if I was gonna do that though! When I cruise at high altitude I get paid for it.

I hate it when I'm at a gathering with my Avid and the first question out of everyone's mouth is......How fast does it go? Does it look like it goes fast? It has 21X12" tires, 65hp, and an undercambered wing...give me a break. Sorry..rant off

I totally agree about the wind. I had that 701 which was a blast to fly too but the wind is 20 here more days than not. Decided my next plane would have to be 20 more than I needed just to compensate. I hate to get passed by cars.

You know, there's something to be said for bopping around in a 65 hp T-cart. It goes 80 or so on 3 gph.. that's pretty hard to beat even in an RV. Kinda eases the pain of todays fuel prices, but ya better have a bit longer strip than a good Cub.. ha ha

Someone posted in another thread that they get about 100-110 on 6 gph in a Carbon Cub. That is about 95 knots or so. I read an article about the Aviat Husky getting 5-6 gph when throttled back some for cruise at 100-110 mph also. Granted it can go faster, but you start seeing some diminishing returns. 100-110 mph at 5-6 gph, but bump it up to 125 mph it is around 9-10 gph.

Indeed! When economy and hourly costs come into the picture, the Taylorcraft is worth looking into for anything other than professional-level commercial bush flying.

A stock 65HP T-craft with 6.00 tires will cruise 90-95 mph on 4 gallons of car gas an hour (moderate prop pitch). Takeoff distance at gross 500-550 feet (low altitudes for comparison), climb is slow.

An 85 HP Taylorcraft (stock 6.00 tires) will cruise 100-105 mph with a compromise propeller and still have very good STOL capability in the back country, at 5 to 5.5 gallons an hour.

An 85 HP T-craft with a climb prop will get off the ground with two aboard in 300-350 feet and climb very well... and still cruise faster than a similarly powered Cub.

A hot-rod T-craft (the basic BC-12D airframe but with the Don's O-200 crankshaft STC engine on the stock short engine mount) will cruise at the same 105 mph but blast off of a 300 foot strip or better, and still use less than 6 gallons an hour in cruise.

Of course the big tires (8.50's let's say) move these speeds down the scale 5 or 8 mph. But you will still get the most bang for the least buck. As mentioned, the 125-150HP Super Cubs will certainly get in and out of a shorter field than the T-craft, no argument. The T-craft also requires a little more skill in the STOL landing department not having flaps. But you can get a T-craft into a pretty short strip if you know what you're doing.

If you need the last 10-15% of back country performance, hauling a dead Brontosaurus out of a 100 foot gravel bar and water-skiing on the tires, then you just have to spend FIVE TIMES more on the airplane and almost TWICE the gas.

EZFlap wrote:Indeed! When economy and hourly costs come into the picture, the Taylorcraft is worth looking into for anything other than professional-level commercial bush flying.

A stock 65HP T-craft with 6.00 tires will cruise 90-95 mph on 4 gallons of car gas an hour (moderate prop pitch). Takeoff distance at gross 500-550 feet (low altitudes for comparison), climb is slow.

An 85 HP Taylorcraft (stock 6.00 tires) will cruise 100-105 mph with a compromise propeller and still have very good STOL capability in the back country, at 5 to 5.5 gallons an hour.

An 85 HP T-craft with a climb prop will get off the ground with two aboard in 300-350 feet and climb very well... and still cruise faster than a similarly powered Cub.

A hot-rod T-craft (the basic BC-12D airframe but with the Don's O-200 crankshaft STC engine on the stock short engine mount) will cruise at the same 105 mph but blast off of a 300 foot strip or better, and still use less than 6 gallons an hour in cruise.

Of course the big tires (8.50's let's say) move these speeds down the scale 5 or 8 mph. But you will still get the most bang for the least buck. As mentioned, the 125-150HP Super Cubs will certainly get in and out of a shorter field than the T-craft, no argument. The T-craft also requires a little more skill in the STOL landing department not having flaps. But you can get a T-craft into a pretty short strip if you know what you're doing.

If you need the last 10-15% of back country performance, hauling a dead Brontosaurus out of a 100 foot gravel bar and water-skiing on the tires, then you just have to spend FIVE TIMES more on the airplane and almost TWICE the gas.

You forgot to mention that they are damn sexy as well.

Nobody ACTUALLY flies their RV 200 knots anywhere. I've raced and won the national championship three times in an RV4 (RV Red Class). Most RVs can only hit 205 or 210 MILES per hours... wide open and level. True... I've been clocked at over 240 mph but that was a speed dash event where I dove in and ran it hard for the length of the runway. Even if they could run 230mph... it wouldn't be at 10 gal/hr!!

T-Crafts rule, I always wanted to dead stick ridge soar mine on the range behind my place. Absolutely no question it had the performance, and then some, but I really didn't want to climb out to prop it! Such a classy airplane, a grand old lady of the sky, that still kicks butt specs wise with the latest designs, they got it right way back then. All the pictures of mine were pre digital or else I'd post one, my color scheme was very similar to the one pictured, and the same classic design, which I somewhat copied on my S-7, and my S-7S, OK, copied it!

Rob wrote:Depends...

Just saying 'cub' seems to encompass a huge variety of flyers If you are talking PA11 with covered gear legs, 8.00x4 tires and a 74" prop, you might get close to that. If you are flying a more typical boondocker with big wheels, big prop, and big wings, you won't get close to that. Pound for pound ,mile for mile, net net, even a Cessna 180 gets better MPG than a 'bushy' Cub. Even if that Cessna has a big motor in it

Real world fuel consumptions in a typical 'economy cruise' :

Typical big wheeled cub- 88MPH @ 8 GPH = 11 MPG
Typical big engined 180- 159 MPH @ 13 GPH = 12.2 MPG

You will have to look to the Rans / Highlander / Kitfox etc types to get the economy you're looking for, but you will still go slow... none of these backcountry birds are going to approach the RV / Lanceair side of things...

Take care, Rob

Agree 100%. You'll burn plenty more gas in a super cub than C180 per mile, least ways that's how it works for me. All my stuff burns more gas and is slower than everyone else though. My dog is dumb, too.

gb

Whee could comment, but I was impressed with the cruise speed of his Luscombe 8E at less than full throttle. Slick airplane and he is able to go many places with it.

ajfriz wrote:You forgot to mention that they are damn sexy as well.

Saw that one in the Knik pic... Quite possibly the prettiest bushy Tcart I have ever seen. There are pics of Jason's in some interesting places,I am surprised he hasn't popped one into this thread

So... so far, spinner has deflated the RV mileage myth, and everyone else has converted Zeniths, Tcrates, Luscombes, and Avids into 'Cubs'

Be careful with the Husky / Carbon Cub propaganda. They are similar HP pushing the same wing and similar fuselage through the air. They both have a 'stock' zeroed thrustline, vs. a cubs -2°, so they should get just a shade better economy, but outside of that, the only reason they get better economy on paper is because of their configurations during certification ie: little tires, covered gear, cruise prop... make them apple to apple and economy will be virtually identical to any other cub.

As for the comment about hauling brontosaurus... I got my pee pee slapped by the head cheese here for entering a discussion with reference to supercubs and moose meat off a sand bar... But the bottom line is weight is weight, and I know no one, who goes camping light and empty... So again, comparing numbers and stats means absolutely nothing if the apples aren't compared to apples...

Hafast.... heading your way in a few

Take care, Rob

With the MT 205 prop turning 1900 rpm and throttled back to around 19 inches, my 180 hp Husky with 26" Goodyears and PowerFlow exhaust trundles along smoothly at 105 knots (120 mph) while burning just under 5.8 gph.

My Mooney '87 201 does over 160 knots while burning 9.5 ghp . . . but not near as much fun as the Husky!

Rob wrote:

ajfriz wrote:You forgot to mention that they are damn sexy as well.

Saw that one in the Knik pic... Quite possibly the prettiest bushy Tcart I have ever seen. There are pics of Jason's in some interesting places,I am surprised he hasn't popped one into this thread

So... so far, spinner has deflated the RV mileage myth, and everyone else has converted Zeniths, Tcrates, Luscombes, and Avids into 'Cubs'

Be careful with the Husky / Carbon Cub propaganda. They are similar HP pushing the same wing and similar fuselage through the air. They both have a 'stock' zeroed thrustline, vs. a cubs -2°, so they should get just a shade better economy, but outside of that, the only reason they get better economy on paper is because of their configurations during certification ie: little tires, covered gear, cruise prop... make them apple to apple and economy will be virtually identical to any other cub.

As for the comment about hauling brontosaurus... I got my pee pee slapped by the head cheese here for entering a discussion with reference to supercubs and moose meat off a sand bar... But the bottom line is weight is weight, and I know no one, who goes camping light and empty... So again, comparing numbers and stats means absolutely nothing if the apples aren't compared to apples...

Hafast.... heading your way in a few

Take care, Rob

I hope to make mine as bitchin as that one. I have 8.50s on mine, but I think I have to put 29s on after seeing the pics of his tcraft.

I never worry about economy in an aircraft burn more 100ll we would all be better off.

Then this week I flew a CH-750 I was looking at the same spot on the ground for 5 min. now that was fun at 5gph

Bumper: how does a guy your size fit in a Mooney I get tilted neck just looking at one.

Every plane has its own fun factor, my RV 8 usually runs 19 mpg and Super Cub not so much but don't care like someone else said! It's about doing what you love to do while you can!!

Wanna good reason to throw economy to the wind?

My Savannah gets 18-20 mpg cruising at 75-80 mph. That's life in the slow lane.

tom

Rob wrote:Wanna good reason to throw economy to the wind?

F**K economy. I push the throttle in as far as it will go, and most days I wish it would go a whole lot further. I'm betting even the F16 kinda guys are up there flying, and saying, "I wish I had another 1,000 pounds of thrust!"

Horsepower rules. For going fast, and, going slow.

Gump