Kevin, a few years ago I started looking for something light and powerful with good manners.
I found it in my Carbon Cub I ended up getting rid of my 185 because most of time
I'd jump in the Cub. Takes longer to get there now, But I'm having a blast doing it. I put 35's
84" Catto no ex. baggage,small fuel tanks. Puts the Fun back into flying. Fly down to my place sometime
and take her for a spin.

Another vote for light and simple. A friend of mine built a 150hp supercub and it was amazing the things he could do with it. But he kept it light and simple and didn't haul camping gear or deer carcasses with it. I guess it depends on what your mission profile will be for the plane. If it's just for boonie bouncing and having fun, keep it light and 160 hp should be plenty. It will feel like a sports car after flying your skywagon.

Not a supercub history expert, but I believe "Alpha" cubs were/are the old ones that ended with "A" N-numbers. I had an early 50's model with 0290 and flaps we bought from Cecil Ice. It was an oil blowing engine, but it sure was nice to fly. I think it flew better at 5000' than the 150hp we had later on did at sea level.

Super Cubs are really nice for take - offs and landings. The rest of the time...well...I'd best stay on subject.

I have a suggestion or two to address the 160/180 choice. It applies to you since it seems like you're not going to be using that Cub for profit. I have almost zero time in a Super Cub, so what I'm about to write is based on common sense and other experience. There's probably eight million hours of SC experience on this forum, but I stand by what I'm about to say:

Get an experimental Super Cub, or a factory Cub that has been re-certified as an experimental, or one that was put together from pieces under an Amateur Built certificate...whatever. If you don't need the standard type certificate, a lot of useful doors open for you, obviously maintenance and annuals and other modifications.

The biggest advantage may be that you can buy a Cub with an O-320, and install the LSE electronic ignition. That will give you 10-15% effective boost in power/torque. That alone will give you back most of the difference between 160 and 180... and if memory serves you will be REMOVING weight. Another benefit is improved fuel economy, you will save a noticeable amount of fuel. Fuel is weight too.

Because of the capability of the LSE ignition, you can hand start your engine easily and reliably and safely under any condition. So the lightest weight starter, or no starter, is actually a worthwhile option. This means you can have a lighter battery, which can be charged by a lighter alternator, through lighter wire.

MTV and others are correct about the handling. Adding a big chunk of weight on one end of a very light airplane makes a big difference in how it flies. When you put the C-85-12 on the Taylorcraft, moving that engine forward 4 inches changes everything. Gotta be similar on a Cub

Another thing you can do on an EXP is put an exhaust system on it that doesn't rob you of power. Not losing power from a bad exhaust is essentially the same as adding more power. But without the fuel burn, weight, and CG moment. With a properly designed 4 into 1 system, your net "gain" will be several horsepower.

On the airframe side, if you buy a Cub that is in need of recovering (can be a money-saving move if you're up for the work), you can save another 10-15 pounds by using the Stewart System covering. This stuff is lighter, water-based, and apparently easier to apply. The Stewart fabric systemis also certified.

All I'm trying to point out is that the extra 20HP does not always have to come with the weight of a bigger and heavier engine.

or a experimental cub that need's recovering, and use oratex.

contactflying wrote:I agree with MTV and Rob about keeping airplanes light and simple so they will fly right. I'm even worse. I liked the 90 hp Super Cub better than the 135 hp and the 135 hp better than the 150 hp. It is hard to teach much technique in an airplane that will takeoff in less distance than it requires to land.

My wife's uncle Jorgy (an Alaska legend) told me that his favorite airplane of all was the 90hp Super Cub. He didn't qualify that with any talk of load capability or speed or anything else for that matter. Just that it was his favorite. He also had great fondness for Hercs. Who can explain such people.

My uncle, Carl Logan, crewed on C-130s out of Fairbanks fifteen years. After 34 years the Air Force threw him out, but he stayed in Alaska until he got very old and came back to the hills here.

180 HP vs 160 HP cubs. I fly with a buddy that has 2 180 cubs. He is faster, rips off the ground quicker and at the same speed burns the same or less fuel than me. The extra 20-40 lbs for the extra hp and prop really don't effect him much. Now one of the down sides of a 180 cub is the cost of hanging it on a cub, 25-35 grand, overhaul costs more, and prop cost more. If you find one for a good price than I think you would be very happy with it. Now as far as the flying light, yep it is a lot of fun and plane flys great. But, I have never been able to talk any of the dead caribou to walk from north of the brooks range home to my freezer. So by the time you add a couple of caribou, 5-10 gal of gas in the back, and a camp you are really not that light. My 160hp is more than enough to do the job. Stock tanks are great if there is fuel every 50 miles. However, if your fuel is 1-2 hours away it gives you little time to play. There is no right or wrong just figure out what you want to do than find the cub that will do it. If you are going to be landing high you might want a few more ponys.
DENNY

DENNY wrote:180 HP vs 160 HP cubs. I fly with a buddy that has 2 180 cubs. He is faster, rips off the ground quicker and at the same speed burns the same or less fuel than me. The extra 20-40 lbs for the extra hp and prop really don't effect him much. Now one of the down sides of a 180 cub is the cost of hanging it on a cub, 25-35 grand, overhaul costs more, and prop cost more. If you find one for a good price than I think you would be very happy with it. Now as far as the flying light, yep it is a lot of fun and plane flys great. But, I have never been able to talk any of the dead caribou to walk from north of the brooks range home to my freezer. So by the time you add a couple of caribou, 5-10 gal of gas in the back, and a camp you are really not that light. My 160hp is more than enough to do the job. Stock tanks are great if there is fuel every 50 miles. However, if your fuel is 1-2 hours away it gives you little time to play. There is no right or wrong just figure out what you want to do than find the cub that will do it. If you are going to be landing high you might want a few more ponys.
DENNY

Well said DENNY.
Hauling shot animals is a fundamental backcountry requirement Seriously.

Like those fatter "tyres" on the Bearhawk Battson! Looks much better and now I won't cringe when I see pics of it in places where it could stub its toes...

I don't know much about Supercubs, so forgive the faux pas. Has there ever been a successful constant speed prop installation for the cub? While the Husky isn't quite the hard core bush plane that the Cub is, it is close and I think it's a solid 30 mph faster. A lot of bush pilots claim they don't care about speed, but as an operator, additional speed is the best thing you can do for your bottom line, right?

I have some. Time in 180hp cubs. One was a fixed pitch borer and the other was an mt with extended wings and ailerons. I would take 160hp over the fixed pitch 180, which had squared off Dakota wings. The other one I flew was a cub crafters pa-18 squared off small droop tips with extended aileron and mt prop. It flew better than the fixed pitch 180hp. Cursed faster than a 160 and burned less fuel. It was heavier but the constant speed prop made up for some of it. I personally think my 160 flys better than both. It all boils down to what your going to do with it. If your not going far, I think you would be happier with as close to stock cub as you can get. Light. Stock wings and tanks, +3" gear 160hp borer And bushwheels. Thats what mine is, has atlee ext baggage and baggage door and vg's. It's a blast for going down to the river to play with minimum fuel and nothing else. And it's good at going cross country. If your not going to travel or fly for more than an hour at a time, get a 90hp j3 with a nose tank and 29" air streaks. Absolute blast to fly

clippwagon wrote:

Zzz wrote:
Maybe we should start talking about women. >:)

Hmmmm, heavy up front to compensate for the rear . We should probably just stick to airplanes.

CW

Winner!! LOL

My first S-7 had a HEAVY (but reliable and cheap) Subaru conversion, it was easy enough to balance out with lead in the tail plus other junk carried far back. Even then I was (unless loaded for xc) always at the front end of the CG range. My current S-7S with the stretched tail and the much lighter Rotax, flies so much better there is no comparison. I NEVER dead sticked ridge soared my first S-7, now I can and do. These Cub discussions about how the C-90's fly the best, remind me of my experience with the 7.

I just spent the last couple months, and I'm not done yet, spending a few thous to lose a few lbs, like the MGL V6 radio that weighs about 9 ozs. including the built in intercom, while I already had a perfectly serviceable VAL 760 radio and separate intercom.......I saved 4 lbs right there! For only a grand! The lighter battery, moving it forward so no bat box required as it now sits on the floorboards, about 8' less heavy battery cable, a mechanical master mounted on the firewall right by the battery saved another couple lbs. All my steam gauge engine instrument are history, along with all their wiring, and nuts and screws to install them, it really adds up. A GRT EIS 2000 took their place, all I need, another 2 or 3 lbs. I will next pull the 3" AS, ROC, and altimeter, as soon as I get my GRT Mini. If I lose power, I'll fly it by feel. Anoter 2 or 4 lbs gone. The Swiss muffler, 7 lbs. a bit noisier but still damn quiet, and it didn't cost me any $ to drop that weight Coming from a 180, a few lbs ain't much, but with a 700 and some lb. plane it's huge.

Needing more power for high altitude, maybe, I sure don't, and I sure as heck appreciate the lesser weight when on short final in a off airport situation. You guys needing to keep the freezer filled with moose or caribou, a different story, for going out and having fun and exploring new sites, less is more. Pops has it figured out

Need to carry loads? News flash: Lighter plane can carry more load. More power can work, BUT, often what happens is the opposite of what S7 just described: add bigger engine, then more gas, then bigger tires, then.....pretty soon youve got a pig that flies like a pig.

There are some 180 cubs out there that were thoughtfully rebuilt with weight in mind during the build, and thyre nice planes, but you really need to fly a really light Super Cub a while....itll spoil you.

MTV

Thanks for the replies-

Curious what we know about Dakota Wings vs stock wings? I believe the Dakota wings are 30 plus lbs heavier...but how about performance?

I have been scouring the Alaska aircraft sites looking at cubs and really understand everyones view points. Obvously everyone has there own mission. Mine is to fly high and land short and have a whole lot of fun doing so (thanks Pops! ). My 180 is already the ultimate load hauler and goes where most cubs do but as said in my previous posts, its still not a light weight cub.

This aircraft will be flown at altitudes and light weight is my main search. The 0320 - 160HP is what I am after. I think finding one under 1000lbs is empty is very doable but... I don't need all the radios and such. You could say I am looking but will take my time to find a good one. In the even you see something don't be afraid to pass it on to me. Not really looking for a deal but as said, want to find a good one. I am not interested in having to put on a new engine in a year or so.

I did look into Denny's cub in Yakutat but it seems as though it has a lot of bugs and rigging that I just dont really want to dive into. I would like to find something where I get the keys and go flying...

Anyone know about this one in Fargo? Empty weight is 1147lbs. Tad heavy but its a nice looking cub.
http://www.supercub.org/ppc/showproduct.php?product=3264&title=2013-2f1951-pa-18-160&cat=4

This one is also nice...sent email to both looking for empty weight in them.
http://www.supercub.org/ppc/showproduct.php?product=3184

I know someone on here is going to see this and have one in mind possibly...

Thanks
AKT

Cubs are really expensive

Why are decent cubs going for 125k?

Supply/Demand

One thing I have noticed is the under seat battery moves the cg forward. Like way forward. And that's the last thing you want when flying light. So that's something to look into as well. I think when I re build my cub, the battery will stay in the stock location.

Anarchisto's 85 hp J3 flew real nice.