If I had 40K and wanted a super cub I'd order up a backcountry supercubs or carbon cub kit. Ya I know a cc kit is more like 60 but, ( there soooo sweet!). Anyway a 40k supercub is a total rebuild project, so why not save some disassembly time and use all new parts.

If that one for 48 just needs a top end that's probably not bad deal, but of course it might be an engine. I'd chance it if the airframes ok.

River rat wrote:If I had 40K and wanted a super cub I'd order up a backcountry supercubs or carbon cub kit. Ya I know a cc kit is more like 60 but, ( there soooo sweet!).

Now, that right there is FUNNY!

I have a couple of friends who've gone that route and the LEAST cost I've heard from them is on the order of $110 K plus one hell of a lot of labor.

Good luck finding ANY kind of SC kit you could actually fly for $40 K

I know a fellow who built one from SCRATCH, meaning from plans, for about that......a remarkable accomplishment indeed, and a HUGE amount of work, scrounging for parts, lots of tools and expertise, a place to build, etc.

MTV

From my skewed perspective....

Agreed, check a cost analysis spreadsheet from an experienced builder which includes time, money, rent, insurance, research etc. it would cost me about a 150K to build a decent aircraft. Building is very costly to me in my opinion. Also, I need to be outdoors on the weekends, being in a hangar to much screws me up personally.

Agree with the above posts on the cost involved with building. I have researched more kits than I care to list and I feltit would have taken quite a bit of scrounging to get the cost of a CC built for under $100K unless one used an already used engine and instruments. The major advantage for me personally is, being able to do my own condition inspections and all other work.

I also looked for a SC for a couple of years before I ended up buying a very nicely modified Champ on floats for a little under your stated $40,000 price. This Champ had an O-235 and did everything I was going to do with a SC. Burned less fuel, more internal room/comfort, and I was very happy with having a plane for a third the cost of a comparably equiped SC. I recently sold it and have regrets of letting it go.

Bought a RANS S7 for a good price that had been sitting in a hangar for over 11 years. Have invested around $45,000 in the plane with all the upgrades I have done. Full Lotus amphibious floats, 29" AlaskaBushwheel Airstreaks, Datum retractable wheel skis, external fuel, Zipper Big Bore kit, etc. What I am trying to say is that all these type of mods on a SC would have cost me a considerable amount of money. I can fly it 100mph burning just over 4 gallons an hour, land and take-off on postage stamp sized areas. Has more room inside than a SC, doors on each side, burns mogas and little of it, a hoot to fly. What more would I need! My days of dreaming of being an Alaska bush pilot and hunting the vast wilderness are past me so the S7 fulfills my needs.

Having said all of this, I guess I still admire and would like to have a SC, but probably can honestly sat it has more to do with the percieved status of owning one.....sort of like owning a Harley. Just something about owning a legend that makes a person feel better about themselves because they see it as being in an exclusive club.

I know from a lifetime of following the cost of airplanes be it in Trade-a-Plane back in the olden times or on Barnstormers now that everything that has been said here about Super Cub prices is true. They are amazing and expensive airplanes. But I don't know as I'll ever understand why.

The poor little old Pacer has the same number of wings, the same number of wheels and most times the same engine. It has the same number of ailerons, the same number of flaps. Why, think it probably has the same number of parts altogether; or close to it. Those parts are, to be sure, shaped different but not a whole bunch.

I don't know why the marketplace hasn't made the super cub reflect those similarities a little better. It beats me.

Harley no. Supercub no.

Honda yes. Scout yes.

Wallet has money left yes.

I do not want to turn this into a Rans S-7 (or whatever) V. a Super Cub debate, but I struggle to see how a Super Cub could improve on the flying I currently do. I can easily see how it would negatively impact it, mostly my per hour dollar fuel rate would DOUBLE. I just flew 4.6 hours, landing (and taking off) at close to 10K, with a lot of cruising above that followed by a lot of low level ground skimming and burned 3.6 GPH of regular mo gas. I couldn't go into shorter or rougher places (well, rougher if I had 35's, I only have 29's) but I'd be landing faster and have a harder time dragging it around once on the ground due to the greater weight. I could carry heavier passengers thanks to more power, with less effect on the performance, but I'm not an outfitter, just a screw around recreational 99% of the time solo flying pilot, and I really prefer my passengers to be on the light side, as in female light. My fat ass beer drinking buddies get a ride now and then but I'm not making my decision as to what to fly based on those relatively few times that happens. I think the Harley analogy is spot on, which shouldn't detract from the SC's inherent capabilities, it, like the Harley, kicks ass, but some of that premium price is BS as far as bang for the buck. Then again, you're not going to find a tricked out S-7S for 40 K either. I checked out Pops experimental SC at the Garden Valley fly-in, IF I had a SC, I'd go that route, simple and light, but I bet he didn't give 40 K for it. BTW, my last road bike was...... a '78 beater Goldwing.

courierguy wrote:I do not want to turn this into a Rans S-7 (or whatever) V. a Super Cub debate, but I struggle to see how a Super Cub could improve on the flying I currently do. I can easily see how it would negatively impact it, mostly my per hour dollar fuel rate would DOUBLE. I just flew 4.6 hours, landing (and taking off) at close to 10K, with a lot of cruising above that followed by a lot of low level ground skimming and burned 3.6 GPH of regular mo gas. I couldn't go into shorter or rougher places (well, rougher if I had 35's, I only have 29's) but I'd be landing faster and have a harder time dragging it around once on the ground due to the greater weight. I could carry heavier passengers thanks to more power, with less effect on the performance, but I'm not an outfitter, just a screw around recreational 99% of the time solo flying pilot, and I really prefer my passengers to be on the light side, as in female light. My fat ass beer drinking buddies get a ride now and then but I'm not making my decision as to what to fly based on those relatively few times that happens. I think the Harley analogy is spot on, which shouldn't detract from the SC's inherent capabilities, it, like the Harley, kicks ass, but some of that premium price is BS as far as bang for the buck. Then again, you're not going to find a tricked out S-7S for 40 K either. I checked out Pops experimental SC at the Garden Valley fly-in, IF I had a SC, I'd go that route, simple and light, but I bet he didn't give 40 K for it. BTW, my last road bike was...... a '78 beater Goldwing.

It's why I have been looking for an S7.. Would love to be able to buy a kit and have it built with a 914Turbo but alas I would be over the price of a Husky then. Been looking for scout also. Raven would be on my list one they come on the used market. I just had depreciation of factory new.

The good thing about backcountrypilot.org is that the end state is mostly persuded rather than a monolithic reglious brand cult or whatever.

If you get to where you want to be, you win everytime. The several "light" Rotax class of aircraft are doing this. And I personally envy the economy of smaller engines.

The engine I trust right now personally is the 0-360. It can carry me and my stuff into the areas I like. I have been to school for it too and have worked on several. But, that may change one day. But, I hope not! It is a big investment?

courierguy wrote:I do not want to turn this into a Rans S-7 (or whatever) V. a Super Cub debate, but I struggle to see how a Super Cub could improve on the flying I currently do. I can easily see how it would negatively impact it, mostly my per hour dollar fuel rate would DOUBLE. I just flew 4.6 hours, landing (and taking off) at close to 10K, with a lot of cruising above that followed by a lot of low level ground skimming and burned 3.6 GPH of regular mo gas. I couldn't go into shorter or rougher places (well, rougher if I had 35's, I only have 29's) but I'd be landing faster and have a harder time dragging it around once on the ground due to the greater weight. I could carry heavier passengers thanks to more power, with less effect on the performance, but I'm not an outfitter, just a screw around recreational 99% of the time solo flying pilot, and I really prefer my passengers to be on the light side, as in female light. My fat ass beer drinking buddies get a ride now and then but I'm not making my decision as to what to fly based on those relatively few times that happens. I think the Harley analogy is spot on, which shouldn't detract from the SC's inherent capabilities, it, like the Harley, kicks ass, but some of that premium price is BS as far as bang for the buck. Then again, you're not going to find a tricked out S-7S for 40 K either. I checked out Pops experimental SC at the Garden Valley fly-in, IF I had a SC, I'd go that route, simple and light, but I bet he didn't give 40 K for it. BTW, my last road bike was...... a '78 beater Goldwing.

No offense to the S-7 intended here, but I'd like to see what a Rans looks like after forty or fifty years of use, neglect and work.

The difference in these planes is more related to structures and durability, I believe.

Now, if you're not working the airplane, that probably isn't terribly important to you.

They are different airplanes, no doubt. Is one better than the other? Depends what you want to do with it. You gonna load two people and camp gear for a week in the Rans? Maybe. You gonna haul two quarters of a big bull moose out of a short, rough strip with it? Etc.

But, as noted by others, not many SC owners are doing that with their $150 K planes either.

As to the Pacer analogy....simple answer: Climb to a thousand feet in the Pacer and close the throttle.....SE where you wind up. Repeat with a SC. Try that Pacer gear on some rough stuff.....

But again, the Pacer is a GREAT and seriously under valued airplane in the current market.

So are Stinsons, Sedans, etc.

Me, I've been drooling over the Rans S 20 ever since I saw the bare frame a couple years ago at OSH. THAT would be my idea of a sweetheart airplane.

All opinion, and in own a Harley and a Cub, albeit a PA-11. Now, talk about an over priced airplane.......

MTV

I agree MTV, mostly. For the guys hauling game off a gravel bar along with a passenger and gear and whatever else they can cram in, the SC is the way to go. Solo, the 7 would do just fine. As to the durability of the S-7 (and I know you weren't knocking it) I often wonder if someone who is used to looking at the tubing sizes on a SC, and then thinks an S-7 is light duty, remembers to take into account the gross weight for both. OF COURSE the S-7 is built lighter. I'm sure a Cub looks flimsy to a Beaver pilot? BTW, I have a bit over 50K in my bird.

What I've seen so far in 2700 hrs of S-7 time, (working it pretty good, relative to it's gross weight, not over grossed but the majority of it all off airport) tells me it will do just fine in the long run. Looking 50 or 60 years down the road, frankly I don't care, I'm more concerned about the next flight! Having rebuilt a T-Craft, and having seen naked Cubs, the S-7 is more reminiscent of the T-Craft. Like the older well used Cubs, there have been a few minor issues with my hard used S-7, thus the SC inspired mods I have on mine, the same solutions for the same issues, one reason I really like checking out SC's, stealing their ideas!

Remember when the little Toyota and Datsun pickups started hitting our shores? They were called flimsy and lightweight, and compared to the iron coming out of Detroit they were. They were also tough, reliable, and most of all economical, and they had a lot of happy owners. My bought new '90 Toy pickup is still around, well over 300K, besides my thrashing it's been owned a series of Mexican concrete contractor's, and every time I see it it's loaded to the gills with crap, just the way I used it! Not as much crap as a full sized pickup could haul, but getting 28 mpg instead of 15. Very similar situation to the Cub/LSA discussion.

The one thing when comparing a modern LSA type to a SC that confuses the issue is the whole nostalgia thing, the coolness of flying something that old, I loved my 46' T-Craft for that reason alone, the fact it flew great was a bonus. I tried real hard to paint my bird "old timey", and I hate telling people I built it from a kit, I'd much rather say "it's a '46 Whatever", and impress them with it's long term durability. I can't do that, yet, but I'm working on it. A couple days ago, at 9600'.

I love folding wings. This Highlander takes 15 minutes to trailer. No permanent hangar needed.

Now that the original question has been sufficiently highjacked...

Not too many SC's have survived 40 - 50 years of use and neglect without 2 - 3 significant rebuilds. What is still serviceable varies greatly. There's no doubt what is left of an S-7 after that amount of time will require some new parts too. The real question is: will the kit manufacturer still be around when said parts are needed? Pretty hard to argue with the staying power of the SC.

With regards to initial outlay for build costs, with TODAY'S prices, an S-7 or S-20 or Highlander will cost as much as an experimental SC, except for maybe the Carbon Cubs. Unless you really need to cut fuel burn in half or exercise light sport privileges, the experimental SC is more useful day in and day out and will probably command better resale.

My partners and I built an S-7 last winter and the S-20 for this winter will arrive in November.

gbflyer wrote: The real question is: will the kit manufacturer still be around when said parts are needed? Pretty hard to argue with the staying power of the SC.

The Super Cub has enjoyed support purely by means of its own legend status, which has become a micro industry; think CubCrafters, Airframes, Atlee, et al. To my understanding, Piper has been estranged from Super Cub support since the last ones rolled off the floor during their brief return to manufacturing in the 70's.

When the user community is strong, the mfr support is much less important. I'd say that Rans has as good a tenure (and hopefully longevity) as any kit mfr in the industry. But I think that were they to fold, the popularity if the S7 design would continue as a juggernaut.

gbflyer wrote:Now that the original question has been sufficiently highjacked...

Not too many SC's have survived 40 - 50 years of use and neglect without 2 - 3 significant rebuilds. What is still serviceable varies greatly. There's no doubt what is left of an S-7 after that amount of time will require some new parts too. The real question is: will the kit manufacturer still be around when said parts are needed? Pretty hard to argue with the staying power of the SC.

With regards to initial outlay for build costs, with TODAY'S prices, an S-7 or S-20 or Highlander will cost as much as an experimental SC, except for maybe the Carbon Cubs. Unless you really need to cut fuel burn in half or exercise light sport privileges, the experimental SC is more useful day in and day out and will probably command better resale.

My partners and I built an S-7 last winter and the S-20 for this winter will arrive in November.

And those are the two main reasons I personally am not interested in a full blown Super Cub, fuel burn and the light sport thing. This means I can work less, fly more often and for longer, when and if I can no longer pass a third class medical. BTW:I had 6 hours of fuel onboard, plus basic camping gear in case of a forced overnighter,, myself at 160 lbs., the folding bike including it's new trailer, and another 20 lbs or so of emergency/survival gear and tools at that site pictured. The take off and landing both were under, well under 100', but I cheated landing into the wind and uphill, and also into the wind but downhill ROC before a high speed descent through canyons down into the valley breakfast spot was 450-500 fpm, in about 70 degree temps, what's this density altitude thing I keep hearing about?? Not real sure how a SC could have been more useful, taking a passenger I guess, but I wouldn't anyway, up there. Crap, I don't want to come off as dissing the SC, just saying I have at least as much fun at half the hourly expense. I also like the fact I am risking a 50 K plane as opposed to a 100+K plane, if worse comes to worse.

Right there with ya on the fuel burn, especially when the AVGAS is $8.90 on the field. Everyone is still healthy, thank The Lord. I can't comment on the high DA performance, however the performance degradation near gross with the shorter Rans wing is very noticeable in my opinion, more so than the SC's we've owned. With that said, I still don't want another SC for today's mission. Since there's more than one of us that likes to go, we'll have use of the S-20 when it's done, plus we'll have backup, a critical component of living and operating in the weeds.

Not really a short wing relative to the gross. At gross the S-7 is 8.98 lb wing loading, the Cub 9.72. I think what you are experiencing is the percent increase relative to the weight? Let's call it 750 lb. for the S-7, and 300 for pilot and fuel. So 1050 lb total, throw in a passenger at 180 lbs. and that's a 17 % weight increase, pretty sure I'm doing that right anyway.

Call it 1200 lbs. for the SC and again 300 for pilot and fuel (though you'd stay up half as long), throw in that same passenger and now you have a percent increase of only 12%. I bet a Caravan pilot doesn't much notice another 180 lbs., much less an AirBus driver. The other extreme would be a two seat ultralight, for sure it's noticed. But I get your point, a heavier to start with airplane, with more power (though interestingly enough a 1200 lb SC with 160 hp is 7.5 power loading, the same as a 750 lb S-7 with 100 hp) will be less effected by adding more weight. This effect is why I leave the spare tire out of my 2200 lb Toyota Yaris (46 mpg) when driving up and down the mountain I live on, while I carry the spare in the 1 ton Dodge diesel (18 mpg). No free lunch for all the above examples, more potential weight carrying capacity costs, but it's worth when or if you need it. That less then 30' span has made all the difference for me a few times, hell I wish it was narrower I'd have less scrapes on the tips!

That seems reasonable on paper and is no doubt all true. However, my portly 950# (before passengers and fuel) PA11 with flaps /VG's/C90 would land slower and take off almost as short with the same load of 2 guys and 12 gallons of gas. It would not climb nearly as well though, and was just a hair slower in cruise. Fuel burn was very similar. Always figured it was the extra wing on the cub. Sea level and cool. Way different where you ID guys operate I'd wager, no doubt in favor of the S7

gbflyer wrote:That seems reasonable on paper and is no doubt all true. However, my portly 950# (before passengers and fuel) PA11 with flaps /VG's/C90 would land slower and take off almost as short with the same load of 2 guys and 12 gallons of gas. It would not climb nearly as well though, and was just a hair slower in cruise. Fuel burn was very similar. Always figured it was the extra wing on the cub. Sea level and cool. Way different where you ID guys operate I'd wager, no doubt in favor of the S7

Wing area isn't everything. Aspect ratio also affects performance.

MTV