Educate me on the PA -18 Super Cub...

No, I am not selling my either. Every man needs two plane right? I have a long way to go before the wife will even think of approving but I am always looking. Anyone know of a good deal? Cub with the mods etc.

So, thats the question.....I have long heard that you a 180 horse until recently hearing that the 180hp is nose heavy and the 160hp is better??

How about the mods. You know the type of flying we do. Mountain tops, river bottoms etc. Also, floats are needed. Not interested in amphibs...

I searched and searched and could not find a good cub thread on here. Lets hear your thoughts...

I see the one member here that did the $15K in upgrades is up for sale on Barnstormers...

Just pondering and may be doing so for a long time but curious...

AKT

I might be able to put you onto an excellent one with AK mods, 180HP and float fittings. However it won't be a 'deal'. PM me if interested.

After putting 15 hours or so on the Top Cub (180hp) this year, I think I'd definitely want the 180hp option. I can't be any more scientific than to say that I wouldn't want less HP, especially for higher altitude ops, though some of the most amazing flying in history has been done on 150hp models.

Super Cubs are awesome. I can imagine few aircraft that are more pleasant to fly, but they aren't the end all of bush class aircraft. Lots of options It would be hard to not look at the SQ models, though it sounds like you might be deal hunting.

I'd say if you are high density altitude flying a lot with a PA-18 - set it up with as light a weight O-360 installation as you can (CC has a nice package), and that will be the preferred way to go. For us in low altitude parts of the country, the 160hp O-320B2B is the better set up. You can get it lighter on the nose than the O-360, it's smoother operating on start and shutdown and a slightly happier "feeling" airplane.

Brad

It should be obvious I'm going to say this, you can never have too much power. Throw a 100lbs (toolkit, survival kit, stuff kit, etc) in the tail, tie it down, and that should compensate for the 180 being more nose heavy.

I really could care less what engine is in a Super Cub for the most part.

O 360 s are NOT NECESSARILY much heavier than O 320s. But a lot of them are.

Add a heavy tool kit to make it fly better??? Really?? That's the worst thing you can do, in my opinion. Get a light one and KEEP it light.

Weight is king in Super Cubs. The lighter they are, the better they fly. And that's the problem with MOST 180 powered cubs: Most have a heavier engine installation. The O 360 burns more fuel....oh, I know, all you have to do is pull the throttle back and you're burning the same as a 320. Somehow that rarely happens, though. So, you have a heavier engine and you're carrying more gas.....Pretty soon you're flying an underpowered Cessna 180.

Gadgets: ADD WEIGHT! It's a Cub, fer crying out loud, not a Caravan. Vacuum system? Dump it. Sixty gallon tanks? You'll always be carrying more gas (weight) than you need. Etc. lots of ways to make Cubs heavier. Don't. The best flying and best performing Cubs I've flown were very basic 160 powered airplanes. If they're over 1200 pounds on wheels, they're real porkers.

The other thing I hate about 180 Cubs is the cowlings they have to put on them. The O 360 is a wider engine, and doesn't fit in a standard Cub cowl. There are some real abortions of cowlings out there for 180 Cubs. Cub Crafters is one of the worst if you ever fly in cool temps. And, I'm not talking Arctic weather.

Wing tips: They are a way to end a wing. Again, it's a Cub, not an Airbus. Keep it simple and light. I'm glad to see more folks going with stock tips nowadays. Droop tips suck from a visibility standpoint. Maybe they reduce your ground run by a foot, but you're always looking around them.....ugh.

Interiors: Stock seat is awful. Folding seat back and decent cushion set are worth doing.

Baggage: everybody wants the whole back end opened up into a massive baggage compartment, and the third seat conversion so they can legally carry 180 pounds in the main baggage and 40 or 50 in the HUGE aft baggage. What are you carrying? Bricks? If a person can carry all they need for a couple weeks in a backpack, do we really need all that WEIGHT capability? It's pretty hard to get 180 pounds of stuff in the main baggage in any case.....but I've seen guys load the hell out of that aft baggage.....bad idea.

Need more space/fuel? Add a combination pod. Don't need it? Drop it and the weight.....only install it when you go on a long trip.

Performance at density altitude......hmmmm, Don Sheldon, Cliff Hudson, George Kitchen all operated 150 Cubs at some really high DAs. Seemed to work for them.

I worked 160 Cubs on floats at pretty high DAs, and with big loads......

Keep it light. If all you've ever flown is heavy Cubs, you need to go fly a light Cub. You'll be amazed, and it's not just a performance thing.....it's the way they fly.

My favorite was a 160 Cub on Bushwheels that weighed (on certified scales) 1040 pounds. It had an Atlee extended baggage, stock fuel, 13 rib wings and not much else. GREAT airplane, that one. And, with the Wip 2000 pound GW kit, it had a 960 pound useful load.....

Light weight is the key, in my opinion.

MTV

mtv wrote:My favorite was a 160 Cub on Bushwheels that weighed (on certified scales) 1040 pounds. It had an Atlee extended baggage, stock fuel, 13 rib wings and not much else. GREAT airplane, that one. And, with the Wip 2000 pound GW kit, it had a 960 pound useful load.....

Light weight is the key, in my opinion.

MTV

that's more useful load than a CC EX with 1865lb GW!

Barnstormer wrote:It should be obvious I'm going to say this, you can never have too much power.

I can agree with this, however... it *may* not come without a penalty somewhere else.

Barnstormer wrote: a 100lbs (toolkit, survival kit, stuff kit, etc) in the tail, tie it down, and that should compensate for the 180 being more nose heavy.

This is fundamentally the poorest way to solve the equation for short field ops, rough field ops, or just plane feel...

Want proof that you can relate to? book some time in a 600 (1340) stearman, and let me know how you like it ... See if you agree; the 220 is a joy to fly, but gutless. The 985 is a tad pigish on the wing, but a brute. The 600 flies like shit, but packs a load like no other. Since in todays day and age there is really no need to pack a load in a Steaman, the joy of flight, may just be more important than the added horsepower

Also, comparing the way an SQ flies to that of a 180 hp Supercub , is like comparing apples to a Porterhouse....

A 180hp cub does some magical things, including haul the mail, but if you're not packing with it, and you already have a bad ass load hauler like Ak's 180, you *may* find the qualities that you lose doing an O-360 may not be worth it for you. I could easily swap the engine out of my 160 hp cub. But elect not to, and I know I am far from alone on this. The places I'll take my cub that I wont take my 180 are few and far between, and the 180 packs a load that makes even a 200 hp cub look foolish.

Having said all that, if I were in the market for the best bang for the buck right this minute, it would be Denny Martels old cub. I can't believe that thing hasn't sold yet? 180+++hp, but done right and reasonably light on the nose, long wings with slats, long chorded ailerons and flaps, nitrous, all in a package that has worked for many years... This plane was an alternate bush class winner at Gulkana (the grand daddy to Valdez)... and at the price I saw it advertised for you couldn't buy just the wings and engine in todays market...

on second thought... never mind, that cub needs to be in my hangar

Take care, Rob

mtv wrote:My favorite was a 160 Cub on Bushwheels that weighed (on certified scales) 1040 pounds. It had an Atlee extended baggage, stock fuel, 13 rib wings and not much else. GREAT airplane, that one. And, with the Wip 2000 pound GW kit, it had a 960 pound useful load.....

Light weight is the key, in my opinion.

MTV

The first time I rebuilt my cub it came out at 1034 on scales with a 160 hp / Borer prop and bush wheels. Pretty bone stock otherwise. It flew really well, and hasn't got any better as I've pigged it out over the years with mods.

double post

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.

Thanks for the posts..keep them coming even more so if you find "the one" out there. Rob sent you a PM about Denny's.


MTV I feel like your spot on. Pretty much all that I have heard and could not agree more. My 180 is basically a cub but I am getting tired of beating her up. She will still go where most cubs will but, she is still not a cub. My 180 is turning into the family wagon...well sort of...I just really want a bad ass light weight cub...period.

Anyhow, I am looking but it needs to be the right one.

AKT

I think Pops will testify about a light 160hp vs a 180hp. He talked a lot about it at the fly in.

Stripped down 13 rib Alpha cub, no electric, no fancy urethane paint, balanced 160 and Borer prop. Atlee baggage, HD gear, 31" ABW's and VG kit.

I suppose the powerplant dilemma comes down to what the intended use is. I would imagine that near max gross, the extra 20 ponies would come in handy, whereas running light all the time for a play aircraft, who needs em? Keep it ALAP. Solo in that 885 lb 100hp Sport Cub will smoke a 1040 lb 150hp Super Cub off the ground, no accounting for the ham fist factor. Granted, the little extra weight of the 360 out front might reduce useful load a minor amount, but when operating heavy sure would be helpful if true shortfield is needed.

It's an argument that extends to all aircraft with a choice of powerplant, in my opinion. Consider my personal dilemma: 360,400, or 540 for the Bearhawk? 360 or 390 keeps it lighter all around, and it would probably perform great with pilot only. 540 though, and you get good performance with more meat on board. The single pilot 360 vs 540 though? What's the threshold for when displacement makes up for its own extra weight? Always on the takeoff, never on the landing.

Been hitting the homebrew. Might have to edit this in the morning.

As usual it all comes down to mission... My above post was not meant to be a blanket statement, but just a suggestion based on what I know (which is not much) about the OP.

For sure a Supercub on amphibs really would benefit from O-360 power. Likewise a banner tow really shines with the torque of the O-360 ... And so on....

And it's probably worth noting that some of this is subjective as well.... I know one Ag operator who owns no GA planes, couldn't care in the least bit about flying one, and doesn't really care what an airplane flies like, so long as it hauls a load I know a few other Ag operators / cub owners who have the means and wherewithal to fly O-360 cubs.. They know nose heavy pigs, and since they do fly cubs for enjoyment they elect to fly cubs that aren't built up that way.

gb's post speaks volumes... For those that didn't recognize , he is describing Paul Claus' 160 hp cub affectionately called alpha...
The important part here is that Paul also owns a bad ass 180 hp cub on 35's (Tango).... And a 185, and a turbine Otter...
Look up any jam session Paul joined in on for the fun of flying and see which plane you see him in...

Take care, Rob


BTW, it would behoove anyone considering an O-360 for a certified Supercub to check out the extremely limited prop options.... all two of them the only legal one worth hanging on it adds more weight than the engine conversion

Zzz wrote:I suppose the powerplant dilemma comes down to what the intended use is. I would imagine that near max gross, the extra 20 ponies would come in handy, whereas running light all the time for a play aircraft, who needs em? Keep it ALAP. Solo in that 885 lb 100hp Sport Cub will smoke a 1040 lb 150hp Super Cub off the ground, no accounting for the ham fist factor. Granted, the little extra weight of the 360 out front might reduce useful load a minor amount, but when operating heavy sure would be helpful if true shortfield is needed.

It's an argument that extends to all aircraft with a choice of powerplant, in my opinion. Consider my personal dilemma: 360,400, or 540 for the Bearhawk? 360 or 390 keeps it lighter all around, and it would probably perform great with pilot only. 540 though, and you get good performance with more meat on board. The single pilot 360 vs 540 though? What's the threshold for when displacement makes up for its own extra weight? Always on the takeoff, never on the landing.

Been hitting the homebrew. Might have to edit this in the morning.

Z,

It's not just the extra weight of the engine. It's the change in the FEEL of the airplane that's there ALL the time, whereas that extra bit of power is only used for takeoff. But every minute you're flying that airplane, an unbalanced Cub is less pleasant to fly.

A light Cub just FEELS better, and it performs better as well. Take that 1040 lb 160 hp cub I described and load it to 2000 lb......960 pounds of "stuff". Now, load a 1300 lb Top Cub to max GW of 2300. You've got nearly the same load, but I'd put money on a good strong 160 winning that contest. On floats, it'd be close, but on floats, get a Husky....much better floatplane IMHO.

So, it's not just performance. The way the airplane handles, maneuvers, the fuel burn (gas prices just went up here again...groan), etc.

I can't speak for a homebuilt Bearhawk, but I'll bet a lighter one of those will be nicer to fly too.

As Contact says, a lot of high time Cub guys will tell you the nicest flying Cubs were the 90 hp models.

I have to laugh when folks talk about "needing" 180 hp in a Super Cub. Go take a look at Paul Claus' "Alpha Cub".....160 hp and he goes where most would fear.....and with loads.

As I noted before, Sheldon, Hudson, Kitchen and many others hauled many "pert-near gross" loads with 160 Cubs.

MTV

Kevin, I've flown every model super cub built, with over 8000 hours in super cubs. By far the best cub I've flown was my own experimental light weight (1150 pounds on 31's) 180hp super cub. Wish I had it back..... Based on the pictures I've seen of where you like to land, you will appreciate a pumped up 0-360 cub. Trust me

I can't boast in this public forum how heavy I've flown the 100hp Cub, but 150 lbs shy of max gross in the Top Cub was much more pleasant. Haven't flown a 150/160 hp Cub in probably 10 years but I've ridden with scottnt in his and it was no slouch. Awesome bird.

As for balance, every design is different. In the case of the BH, the tail is a little heavy so the 540 balances it out nicely (from what I have read.)

Maybe we should start talking about women. >:)

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

It's probably worth noting that what you can do with an experimental cub and what you can do with a certified cub are worlds apart. Living in high country a person may very well need a 180hp or more cub. If that description fit me I would be looking at an experimental. It's just too hard to get the W&B right in a certified cub for my tastes. There iare very good reasons CC started from scratch with the Carbon cubs rather than just pump up the existing Top Cub / Ranger design