I do know of a decent super cub for sale, fabric is fairly dress and it has a low time engine. Skis and floats and he wants 80USD. PM me for details if you're interested.

THERE YA GO!! Remember you can fly across Death Valley in most any plane. But no matter how hot it is if you are in a supercub you will always be COOL!!!
DENNY

There are several options out there in the experimental category that can be had for under $100K, but will say, most of the STOL types have drastically increased in price. While I prefer a tandem style airplane, my current flyer is side by side and I am really liking its performance. Great cruise speed, low stall/landing speed and very roomy for all the crap a guy wants to have on a trip away from home.

I was doing a speed check the other day. Rarely do I turn it up to 2700 RPM, as I normally just putt around 22-2400RPM. I was surprised at the speed, but the fuel burn was closer to 9 gph at full rich. O-320 Lycoming.

If you are a confirmed solo flyer you have many options. If you add a passenger things start to change. Three most important things imo for a camping/reasonable backcountry airplane: 1) useful load, 2) horsepower, 3) range. The problem with most Supercubs (not carbon cubs) is their gross weight limitation. You can find a lot of 150 hp Supercubs with a useful load of less than 500 lbs (increase is available but requires extensive mods). Put in 36 gallons of fuel and you are flying solo. Fly with 1/2 tanks and you are not flying in the backcountry. This also rules out most Citabrias except the Scout. Maules are a good choice and in your price range. Older Glastar if short field operation isn’t a necessity. Cessnas may be your best option and resale value. Have fun looking.

Scout, Scout, Scout; have no doubts

Cubs are quite slow in my experience. Pumping cash in to your Pacer is probably a great option. See if you can put a long wing on with an O-360 and a long composite prop?

The one thing that everyone seems to agree upon is that - if you are operating on rougher surfaces than the stock gear and 26 GYs can handle, you need Bushwheels. There is really no substitute for rough surfaces no matter what you are flying.

If you keep an eye on the market, a late eighties Husky A-1 through late nineties Husky A-1A for less than 100k will pop up. Maybe a wood winged scout as well. The key is choosing what fits your mission the best and giving yourself months to watch the market.

Goodyear wrote:If you are a confirmed solo flyer you have many options. If you add a passenger things start to change. Three most important things imo for a camping/reasonable backcountry airplane: 1) useful load, 2) horsepower, 3) range. The problem with most Supercubs (not carbon cubs) is their gross weight limitation. You can find a lot of 150 hp Supercubs with a useful load of less than 500 lbs (increase is available but requires extensive mods). Put in 36 gallons of fuel and you are flying solo. Fly with 1/2 tanks and you are not flying in the backcountry. This also rules out most Citabrias except the Scout. Maules are a good choice and in your price range. Older Glastar if short field operation isn’t a necessity. Cessnas may be your best option and resale value. Have fun looking.

The Gross weight upgrade is good for 2,000 lbs and can be done on a covered wing. Here is a https://www.wipaire.com/modification/gr ... super-cub/.
DENNY

DENNY wrote:

Goodyear wrote:If you are a confirmed solo flyer you have many options. If you add a passenger things start to change. Three most important things imo for a camping/reasonable backcountry airplane: 1) useful load, 2) horsepower, 3) range. The problem with most Supercubs (not carbon cubs) is their gross weight limitation. You can find a lot of 150 hp Supercubs with a useful load of less than 500 lbs (increase is available but requires extensive mods). Put in 36 gallons of fuel and you are flying solo. Fly with 1/2 tanks and you are not flying in the backcountry. This also rules out most Citabrias except the Scout. Maules are a good choice and in your price range. Older Glastar if short field operation isn’t a necessity. Cessnas may be your best option and resale value. Have fun looking.

The Gross weight upgrade is good for 2,000 lbs and can be done on a covered wing. Here is a https://www.wipaire.com/modification/gr ... super-cub/.
DENNY

I've only ever I stalled these kits with the fabric off. I've been told it can be done with the fabric on, but I really can't see how. I guess it stays on but you sure have to put a lot of cuts in it don't you?

see below

I would not say it is a lot of cuts, but the cuts you do make are not short!! They say it is 30 hours of labor. By the time you are done with painting I don't think it would be done much quicker. Supercub.org has some good posts with pics of doing it fabric on. It is best done at recover time, but if you don't want a lot of downtime just get er done.
DENNY

testosterone slinging?

FWIW, I know many people with Huskies, and have never met one 25 mph faster than my old beater cub, let alone 35! And my cub is slooooow... Is that a thing? comparing the slowest configured cub to the sleekest husky my not be an accurate assesment.

At the end of the day, these deals are fun. Everyone has a different idea of short, rough, or back country, and till you've put a face to the name on the screen, you never know what you're getting when you read the lines. I've asked more than visitor how much room they feel comfortable working an airplane in and out of... The city STOL guys in CC's or SQ's usually end up needing twice, and sometimes three times what they quote The bush rats flying clapped out cubs usually get by with half. I've know more than one person to get nervous about landing at my home strip, while a good friend does it in his Christian Eagle, 2 up! He knows his wing.

A good husky driver might have fun chasing, or leading us around for a day.... maybe... but he'll work his tail off to do it a good cub guy is usually just enjoying a magic carpet ride.

Halfast used to post here. He has a picture of an LZ on a cinder cone (Volcanoe) in an undisclosed area. I would guess it would have been about 6500'msl, probably a mid day DA of 9000+.
3 cubs- his, mine, and Tom Ford's before it was Tom's. Also, 3 Pacers driven by 3 great pacer guys, Speedbump, and 2 non bcp'ers.

Don't know how much better a guy could ask for? Anyone of those guys could have parked their airplanes anywhere that made sense (some places that might not) and never worried much about it. Every one of them used them for missions like the OP... that's the good stuff.

Take care, Rob

Rob’s points are well taken. To summarize: “The limiting factor in back country Ops is nearly always the pilot, not the airplane.”

His comments are also close on the Husky. I requested a Husky for work back when, because I couldn’t get the work done I needed (wanted) to do in the two or three Cubs I had access to.

That mission was relatively long range, long endurance during relatively short days near the Arctic Circle, fall and spring. And, yes, off airport ops was part of the mix.

What the Husky offered was more speed (I documented that our Husky was 20 mph faster than any of our Cubs in all configurations: floats, wheels and skis), and great fuel range. BTW, all our Cubs were basically stock 18s, all with 160 hp. The Husky’s 180 hp and Constant Speed prop plus those 50 gallon tanks afforded really good fuel economy doing the kind of work I was doing (low level, slow survey/telemetry).

I also found that the Husky would go anywhere I was willing to take one of those Cubs, but, as Rob noted, I had to work quite a bit harder to make that happen safely in the Husky.

That said, performance-wise, I found that the Husky was a FAR better performer than any Cub when operating on floats or skis, and a lot of my ops were in those configurations.

The Husky is indeed a great airplane, but it demands a bit more focus and skill on the part of the pilot to do what a Cub does easily.

Not a bad thing, in my opinion.

MTV

mtv wrote:Rob’s points are well taken. To summarize: “The limiting factor in back country Ops is nearly always the pilot, not the airplane.”

His comments are also close on the Husky. I requested a Husky for work back when, because I couldn’t get the work done I needed (wanted) to do in the two or three Cubs I had access to.

That mission was relatively long range, long endurance during relatively short days near the Arctic Circle, fall and spring. And, yes, off airport ops was part of the mix.

What the Husky offered was more speed (I documented that our Husky was 20 mph faster than any of our Cubs in all configurations: floats, wheels and skis), and great fuel range. BTW, all our Cubs were basically stock 18s, all with 160 hp. The Husky’s 180 hp and Constant Speed prop plus those 50 gallon tanks afforded really good fuel economy doing the kind of work I was doing (low level, slow survey/telemetry).

I also found that the Husky would go anywhere I was willing to take one of those Cubs, but, as Rob noted, I had to work quite a bit harder to make that happen safely in the Husky.

That said, performance-wise, I found that the Husky was a FAR better performer than any Cub when operating on floats or skis, and a lot of my ops were in those configurations.

The Husky is indeed a great airplane, but it demands a bit more focus and skill on the part of the pilot to do what a Cub does easily.

Not a bad thing, in my opinion.

MTV

Hey Mike, I'm curious what your take would be on a Scout, now that A1 Skinner has abandoned the cause.

They seem to be an underappreciated make & model. I towed sailplanes for many years with one but never need to "push it". However at the time I was impressed with what I could do with it given my experience levels at the time, about 40 years ago

I bought an A1 Husky back in September, 1k hrs tt, Atlee Dodge HD gear w/ 31’s and baby bushwheel, MT Ultra for $115k. I love it for what I’m doing, but it definitely requires more effort and finesse to fly than a Super Cub. It’s a surprisingly slick airframe that seems to require a nose high sink to get it in short, if you drop the nose for a gust it’ll pick up 10mph immediately and float. The trim is goofy and requires getting used to, it’ll never be as nice as a Cub trimmable stabilizer. It feels like it’s built as a working airplane, the easiest approach and landing I’ve made was with a 275# passenger in the back seat.

However, I don’t think there’s a better all-around plane that can check several boxes for fun and cross country. I can jump up to 7500-9500 msl and move along at 115-120 indicated. The tall control stick feels like the perfect height. The fuselage is substantial and well built. I added Thomas Dietrich’s aileron spades and greatly improved the handling, my J3 feels clunky compared to it. I flew them back to back and didn’t enjoy the Cub, which honestly bothers me to think of my Cub like that. I’ve got a Super Cub buddy I fly with quite a bit, we both work Turbine Cat’s and agree the handling of it is the baseline for what we compare our hobby planes to, because a Cat flys better than all of them At 2450rpm on a 160hp 320 for him on extended gear, 31s, and a 8243 borer, I’m at 1700/19” for 80-85mph and occasionally pulling ahead. At my typical joyriding 1900/21” I’ve left him behind. He flew it from the front seat a couple weeks ago, ringing it out for about 30 mins, and was very quiet when we landed. He called me the next day and said he was blown away, and could get used to flying it.

All that said, adding an o360 and MT prop along with bush wheels to your Pacer could be the ticket, you know the plane and it’d be an awesome performer with the added power. It might not make sense financially but nothing does these days. Life’s short.

Mapleflt wrote:

mtv wrote:Rob’s points are well taken. To summarize: “The limiting factor in back country Ops is nearly always the pilot, not the airplane.”

His comments are also close on the Husky. I requested a Husky for work back when, because I couldn’t get the work done I needed (wanted) to do in the two or three Cubs I had access to.

That mission was relatively long range, long endurance during relatively short days near the Arctic Circle, fall and spring. And, yes, off airport ops was part of the mix.

What the Husky offered was more speed (I documented that our Husky was 20 mph faster than any of our Cubs in all configurations: floats, wheels and skis), and great fuel range. BTW, all our Cubs were basically stock 18s, all with 160 hp. The Husky’s 180 hp and Constant Speed prop plus those 50 gallon tanks afforded really good fuel economy doing the kind of work I was doing (low level, slow survey/telemetry).

I also found that the Husky would go anywhere I was willing to take one of those Cubs, but, as Rob noted, I had to work quite a bit harder to make that happen safely in the Husky.

That said, performance-wise, I found that the Husky was a FAR better performer than any Cub when operating on floats or skis, and a lot of my ops were in those configurations.

The Husky is indeed a great airplane, but it demands a bit more focus and skill on the part of the pilot to do what a Cub does easily.

Not a bad thing, in my opinion.

MTV

Hey Mike, I'm curious what your take would be on a Scout, now that A1 Skinner has abandoned the cause.

They seem to be an underappreciated make & model. I towed sailplanes for many years with one but never need to "push it". However at the time I was impressed with what I could do with it given my experience levels at the time, about 40 years ago

The Scout is a great airplane, in my opinion. It shares many of the characteristics I noted above of the Husky....sometimes.

What I mean by that is, the Scout "standard" fuel tanks are really too small. The long range tanks, on the other hand, at (if I recall) 72 gallons, are quite a bit too big. The wood wing Scouts are great planes, fairly light, by comparison to the metal wing Scouts. That said, an annual inspection can be nerve wracking if you don't know/trust the IA very well. A lot of wood spars have been condemned which were in fact airworthy. In defense of the mechanics, it's pretty hard to thoroughly evaluate what LOOKS like a crack in a spar, especially if it's in a tough spot to inspect.

But, the Scouts are fast airplanes. CS props were available, though not standard. The fixed pitch equipped Scouts leave some performance on the table, even with the O-360 engine.

Scouts are relatively heavy as well, as are many of the newer Huskys. Those metal spars and all the "dress up" interior stuff adds up in weight.

Comfort: The Scout just plain blows away the other planes we've discussed here when it comes to comfort. It's a very generous and comfortable cabin, a great heater system for cold weather ops, and good baggage space.

The Scout is another plane that can do a lot, but the stall speed is just a fair bit higher than the other planes in this class. I've never seen any ways to improve that on a certified Scout. Would I take a Scout into virtually any of the "airports" in Idaho? Hell yes. But, in a STOL contest, the Scout isn't going to do quite as well as a Cub or Husky. See my previous note, however: A "good" Scout pilot in a Scout will likely outperform an "average" Cub or Husky pilot in a STOL contest.

But, while STOL contests are a lot of fun, they don't reflect a lot of the "gotchas" that present in true back country and off airport flying.

I'll say it again: It's the Pilot guys.....

But, a Scout is a great airplane

MTV

Rob wrote:testosterone slinging?

FWIW, I know many people with Huskies, and have never met one 25 mph faster than my old beater cub, let alone 35! And my cub is slooooow... Is that a thing? comparing the slowest configured cub to the sleekest husky my not be an accurate assesment.

Take care, Rob

I wasn’t intending to bloviate or sling testosterone. Just sharing my experience, as the original poster identified “not much slower than his pacer” as a point of criteria for selection.

I’ve never owned a Supercub, but have flown some and alongside some with 150-160 hp Lycomings turning borer props that maxed out at 90 mph, and are most frequently operated at 75-80 mph in cruise to achieve a reasonable fuel burn.

Our A-1A Husky on 31s with an MT two blade shows us an honest 110+ knots at 2350rpm and 21” mp where we fly. It’s burning a little less than 6 gph at this power setting. I didn’t believe it initially, but after 500 hours in it, we have a pretty good sample to base our speed and efficiency numbers on.

I’ve flown a lot of other Huskies, and ours is a little faster than others I’ve flown, but they are all 120 mph airplanes at 7 gph or less between 5000-10000 feet.

The PA-18s that I have flown will take off and land much shorter than the Husky, and are considerably lighter. I love them, and hope someday to own one, but in my experience, they are slower than the Pacers that I have been around, and appreciably slower than the Huskies I’ve flown. If I operated from the shortest and roughest strips out there, or gnarly off-airport sites, a stripped down PA-18 would be my first choice. I am just Sharing my experience, not dogging the Cub. Pun intended...

Rob wrote:If getting in to 'rougher' strips carries much weight at all on your wish list, nothing else listed is going to do it significantly better than what you have if 26" Goodyears are the limit. Certainly not a short coupled Maule.

Curious why you would call the Maule "short coupled" in relation to a Pacer, when the Maule was developed FROM the Pacer?

TriPacerPilot wrote:I've considered the Maule with it's extra power, but my Pacer's wing has about the same area and it's lighter, so it's hard to believe the Maule gets in much slower. I understand it will get out shorter.

I don't know the empty weights of an M5-210 like the one posted in the Barnstormers ad above, and your Pacer, but the M5 will have considerably larger flaps than your Pacer. I think they're about 6' long, so I would suspect it would be pretty comparable to your Pacer in slow flight.

I love my Husky and have never regretted buying it. Many trips into the Idaho backcountry. Camp on mile high every trip. very capable and since I live in Texas, the extra speed over a cub is really nice. highly recommend

1:1 Scale wrote:

Rob wrote:If getting in to 'rougher' strips carries much weight at all on your wish list, nothing else listed is going to do it significantly better than what you have if 26" Goodyears are the limit. Certainly not a short coupled Maule.

Curious why you would call the Maule "short coupled" in relation to a Pacer, when the Maule was developed FROM the Pacer?

I don't think I said that? surely didn't mean to imply it, what I meant was that trading one short coupled plane for another, with similar 'suspension' while maintaining the same tire size would net no meaningful increase in rough strip capability....

1:1 Scale wrote:

TriPacerPilot wrote:I've considered the Maule with it's extra power, but my Pacer's wing has about the same area and it's lighter, so it's hard to believe the Maule gets in much slower. I understand it will get out shorter.

I don't know the empty weights of an M5-210 like the one posted in the Barnstormers ad above, and your Pacer, but the M5 will have considerably larger flaps than your Pacer. I think they're about 6' long, so I would suspect it would be pretty comparable to your Pacer in slow flight.

The Maule is a fabulous performer. Modded out even more so. However since P=MV, and since it weighs more, it's going to have to have better slow flight charechterisics to get in tighter..... sorry there's just no free rides on this one


Take care, Rob

Scolopax wrote:
I wasn’t intending to bloviate or sling testosterone. Just sharing my experience, as the original poster identified “not much slower than his pacer” as a point of criteria for selection.

I’ve never owned a Supercub, but have flown some and alongside some with 150-160 hp Lycomings turning borer props that maxed out at 90 mph, and are most frequently operated at 75-80 mph in cruise to achieve a reasonable fuel burn.

Our A-1A Husky on 31s with an MT two blade shows us an honest 110+ knots at 2350rpm and 21” mp where we fly. It’s burning a little less than 6 gph at this power setting. I didn’t believe it initially, but after 500 hours in it, we have a pretty good sample to base our speed and efficiency numbers on.

I’ve flown a lot of other Huskies, and ours is a little faster than others I’ve flown, but they are all 120 mph airplanes at 7 gph or less between 5000-10000 feet.

The PA-18s that I have flown will take off and land much shorter than the Husky, and are considerably lighter. I love them, and hope someday to own one, but in my experience, they are slower than the Pacers that I have been around, and appreciably slower than the Huskies I’ve flown. If I operated from the shortest and roughest strips out there, or gnarly off-airport sites, a stripped down PA-18 would be my first choice. I am just Sharing my experience, not dogging the Cub. Pun intended...

I couldn't agree with yours, Mike's, and CHA's assessment of the husky anymore. In fact, If I didn't end up as care taker of a decent C180 and reasonable bushbeater cub at the same time, I'd think long and hard about owning one.

A Husky (provided he upped the tire size) would be a fabulous machine for his intended mission. If rougher (tough to define) is going to be a staple, I'd recommend cub gear. Not being a Husky guy I hadn't realized they came up often for $100K, probably a lot of bang for the buck. With your (Scolopax's) extensive backcountry experience in heavier constant speed aircraft, I expect you took to the added workload of managing airspeed compared to something lighter, dirtier, and fixed pitch quite well. Might not be as fun of a transition for some, the challenge might be fun in and of itself for others?

It was not my intent to disparage the Husky, they're a fine machine. As they should be, they've got as close to a cub wing as you can get, with lot's of modernizations along the way. Including a better flap, even in the earliest models.

My intent was to ask for accuracy. It's just not a fair assessment to compare a 180 - 200 hp constant speed, cleaner airframe example of one to a borer swinging 150 hp 35" long legged example of the other.

To even things up just a scoche I'd offer that without thinking too awfully hard I can think of 3 cubs off the top of my head (a legend, a backcountry, and a smith kit) 1, O-340, 1, IO-340, and 1, IO360. To the best of my knowledge those 3 in particular are all currently swinging WW props, but that changes with the mood All three will produce speeds in keeping with what CHA posted for his Husky, which with the cub gear is understandably slower than yours. In fact having watched a couple of those travel XCountry on the in-reach I am always baffled. That's with a fixed pitch prop! All 3 are boodocker cubs proper, and would be at home on a boulder pile or the groomers of Idaho. None fall within the OP's budget Hence my suggestion to consider doing something with the Pacer.

In the end, it's all about how accurate and honestly a person can assess their mission, and a huge part of that is what a person enjoys doing. For some people camping means a bivy, and a fire, for the next guy it'll be require a cot at least, and some it means landing on a groomer and heading in to the lodge.

Take care, Rob