Ditto what Jr.CubBuilder said!! I have been looking at SuperCubs and they are definitely high priced. The good thing is that the prices on them has somewhat stabalized. The higher priced ones have been for sale for a LONG time. And I have noticed that the 180 prices seems to have dropped a little. I have found several nice 180's for the same or less money than you can get an SC. I am seriously considering one, just can't quite talk myself into it since I feel the fuel costs and maintanence cost will be above my means. Heck, I can keep my 172 and my Champ....fly both and still probably stay under the what it will cost to own the bigger planes.
The 180 though....to me...would be the ultimate flying pickup.
Keith

More than a couple people have mentioned that a 180 is the way to go. I suppose once you have one it's easy to agree, but it sure seems like a lot of airplane. A friend of mine took me for a ride in his and it quickly dawned on me that it's not the sort of plane you just go out and toodle around in for an hour to relax. Well, not if your finances look anything like mine.

I've always liked the look of the Stinsons, but a long time ago someone steered me away from them as being problematic, and I guess I just quit looking. For no good reason I'm partial to the Lycoming engine...guess it's because I'm use to seeing the name every time I check my oil.

Then yesterday I saw a Grumin Albatros with only 350 hours on the engines for 175K and I started thinking that I could sell my house and live in it on a lake somewhere...

One of these days I'll make it to Angry Parrot and have Jeremy take me for a Maule ride...guess I should really send my wife seeing as she'll be the final word.

There you go! Afterall that is what I had to do.....

Gee, that was helpful.

I've flown a drop dead gorgeous 1937 Cessna Airmaster, actually. Take care of a metal airplane and it'll last pretty much forever.

A tube and fabric airplane, on the other hand is going to need rag occasionally. That's not a bad thing--just the way it is, but its expensive, as in HUGELY expensive. And before you decide to bite the bullet and put new rag on it, it'll look like crap for several years, generally, with patches and such.

Each has its advantages. Each has its disadvantages.

To suggest either is useless is wrong.

MTV

The franklin engine manufacturing rights have been bought by a company in poland and they are planning 165, 180, and 220 versions. A company in Georgia called Classic Aire had several examples at Oshkosh last summer. Word is they will sell the 220 with all accesories for around $20,000. The man to talk to is Bruce Kown. His e-mail is [email protected]. I got an alternator conversion for my '46 stinson from him last summer and he was very helpful.
By the way, I second the Stinson breed. Very light controls, and with the slots in the wings you have full aileron control right up to stall and through it. Something to think of when maneuvering down in that area of the envelope. Mine makes me smile every time I push the throttle forward.

All this talk about rust and repair made me think about the Montagne Mountain Goat STOL, particularly their titanium airframe option. My only experience with the material is from bicycling, but it sure made a big impression on me. Lighter than steel, more flexible than aluminum, and pretty much impervious to corrosion. It seems like the ideal aircraft frame material.

I shudder to think of what that little option costs...on a bicycle it's about three times the cost of steel, though a bicycle requires a bit more manufacturing finesse than an airframe. A good titanium bicycle frame can easilly cost 5k. I understand titanium is difficult to weld.

Anybody ever hear if the Mtn. Goat is actually going to get built?

ravi,

Never happen.

MTV

I'd hate to pay three times as much for a titanium Mtn. Goat just to shave 80 lbs.
Empty Weight: 1,250 lbs w 4130 Chrome Moly alloy airframe; 1,170 lbs w Titanium airframe
http://www.bushplanes.com/class-comparisons.html

Sooo... Is that company in Poland, PZL, by chance? What comes around, goes around I guess. I'll have to do some research when I actually have a few minutes to sit here and play on the 'puter.

wirsig wrote:I'd hate to pay three times as much for a titanium Mtn. Goat just to shave 80 lbs.

Corrosion resistance is a huge benefit of titanium though. Probably not enough to move the industry that direction, however.

Regarding rusted longerons, the most commonly affected are inadequately maintained/protected salt water float planes and the rust is usually in places by the rear attach points and lower down in the tail. These places can easily be accessed by splitting the fabric at the longeron, running a vertical cut and "sardine can lidding" the fabric out of the way to cut and replace any damaged clusters or sections. The fabric is then rejoined often with a belly piece and shrunk tight.
Jeremy

maules.com wrote:Regarding rusted longerons, the most commonly affected are inadequately maintained/protected salt water float planes and the rust is usually in places by the rear attach points and lower down in the tail.

I saw a 1999 Scout for sale by the State of Alaska a while back with this very problem. Lower longerons were rusted beyond airworthiness. They wanted $35,000 for it. Would have be a great project for a local, but the logistics of a guy going up there from the Lower 48 to get that thing home is unappealing.

I understand the price of titanium alloy went ballistic about a year ago. The guys who are making the titanium gear legs for the Cessnas said they thought they might have to double the price of the gear, based purely on the raw material price. Apparently, much of the titanium in the world comes from Russia, or thereabouts, and they just found another application for it, driving the prices up.

Jeremy is right, it isn't worth the extra cost to replace steel tube with titanium in these things. Steel tube is relatively easily repaired, and as Jeremy pointed out, if you treat it properly in the first place, then take care of it, even in salt water, it does just fine. We ran a Super Cub on floats in and out of salt for 13 years, and when they took the rag off to recover, it was squeaky clean.

MTV

Re aircraft needing work transported from AK. My company once towed an M5 with wings fastened along the sides from Fairbanks to Georgia (5000 miles) backwards on it's own wheels. Picked up used tyre casings at airports along the way, might have been 5 pair, I can't remember.
Jeremy

Hey MTV,
Is a super cub worth the money? They have always seemed like a strange choice for commercial flying, what with their two seats and rather limited baggage space. There must be something rather special about them for so many people to use them despite these limitations.

ravi,

The Cub is a cult icon, frankly. It is a great little airplane, kept light (most aren't) and simple (most arent').

As you noted, it's load capabilities are limited, but if you need to go somewhere and land on a rough spot that's no more than 300 feet, and often less, the Cub is probably the best there is for that task.

Now, if you have to fly 200 miles to get to that spot, and go home at the end of the day, the Cub is limiting.

There are a lot of Cubs around, there are LOTS of Cub modifications around, so you can "customize" yours to your heart's (and wallets') content. It is, without doubt, the most modified airplane there is, as far as the number and variety of mods available.

There is now a significant small industry evolving that makes Cub clones and experimental Cub kitplanes. A lot of these are virtually indistinguishable from a "real" cub.

And, its a cult icon. Nothing wrong with that, but its also a great little plane. Like any other, it has some limitations.

MTV

StinsonPilot wrote:Especially an updated re-engined Stinson 108-2. I think you'll find way more bang for your buck. Not to mention the ramp appeal and strong nature of the airframe! Oh, did i mention the cost to acquire is less as well?

Its another very viable option....IMHO

New to this forum and enjoying the threads, especially the Stinson ones! I finished restoring a 108-1 about a year ago and have been having a ball in it ever since.

It has tons of ramp appeal, and even with a Franklin 150 (which, as 150s go is VERY strong and silky smooth), quite respectable performance. Good climbing wing, one of the smoothest and nicest flying airplanes I've ever flown, and an extremely robust airframe.

I have over 100 hours in it now and don't have a single bad word to say about this airplane. My useful is 800 lbs, the cockpit is very comfortable, I burn about 8.5gph leaned and I can climb at 1250fpm on a cold winter day by myself. It cruises at 120mph.

These airplanes are sleepers!

"Small tails rule"-- I like it.
The 170'er motto is "I like round tails". Another good one from my Harley days-- "Sportster: Big Jugs,Skinny Frame"