After a 14 month hiatus my life has gotten to the point that I can start flying again and I'm looking at planes. I found a really nice specimen PA-18a and need thoughts on value. I viewed the plane today but the owner was in a rush so I didn't get all the exact details, but here's what I know.

It's a '57 A model that was completely refurbished in 2010. It was taken all the way down to the frame, sandblasted and epoxied then built back up. The fabric is impeccable, and the paint job very nice. The wings are extended and square tip, with droop ailerons. It has the Atlee Dodge extended gear, and it's a 180hp 0-360 with only 400 hours. The motor was factory new in early 2000's. 31" Bushwheels. The panel is very basic VFR. There are really no other mods, the owner wanted to keep the plane as light as possible. He's not weighed it, but I have several friends who've seen it fly and they tell me that it will basically go straight up.

Any thoughts on what this thing is worth? Yes, I've done my own research as well, trying to comparison shop it, but thought I'd toss it out to hear the opinions of you all.

No idea what it's worth but you probably don't want to tell anyone where it's at or it might get snaked out from under you. Sounds real desirable.

I don't know about the American market, but over here it would be worth a small house...

Supercub rebuilds cannot be completely valued on the basis of how they look on paper. There is so much variability between cubs anymore that there is hardly a way to do comparisons. Rebuild quality is a confounder. Amateurs are out there rebuilding cubs of unequal quality.

I am not familiar with any STC to droop ailerons in a cub. If this is a certified airplane and there is no STC/337 for those droop ailerons, then the value has gone down. Also, if it was resurrected as an experimental plane, then the value has gone down compared against a similar certified plane.

A Lycoming engine that is 10 years old with only 400 hrs on it might be better evaluated by its calendar age. These engines don't like sitting around. Don't give it value because it only has 400 hrs.

If you do buy this plane, make the offer contingent on making its stated weight on scales. There are plenty of cubs that weigh more than their owners claim.

For comparison, a nice alaska-modded supercub with 180 HP and those relative times could fetch between 100-120k.

This one has more hours but might be a fair comparison.

http://alaskaslist.com/1/posts/10_Trans ... 180hp.html

In the end it's only worth what someone will pay for it.

I saw that cub for sale and thought it looked like a good deal. For what its worth a 79 PA18-180 sold here back in Feb for 110k. Fuselage covered in 92 and the wings in the last 8 years. Had 250 hours on a new 0360C4P installed in 2004 or so.

2 other cubs sold here last week. A 94 with 500 TTSN for 125k and a rebuilt in 2006 76 cub for 115k. Both went to Texas.

Cub Crafters has the STC for the dropped ailerons.

Is it normal to rebuild a plane and not weigh it?
Sounds like just what I need!

If you've been shopping, you've turned down/ignored what you didn't like. If this one blows your skirt up, make your best deal & buy it. I don't agree (fully) with buying a "toy" as an investment. Same with a truck, quad, etc. Buy it, play with it, sell for what the market will bear at the time.
Do your best to avoid possible future surprises, but there is no way to guarantee that. Take the plunge/chance.

Thanks for all the replies guys. Nimpo, you're officially a bad influence. Unfortunately, I share your views! To your point Squash, the quality of the rebuild is really good. The guy who did it certainly does not have the cachet of Cubcrafters, but he's got a strong following in the east, at very least, it was not some cobjob done by the owner.

Matt that one you posted sure seems like a decent buy. I thought that all Cubs like that in AK were selling for much more than that. Seems like that would be snapped right up.

mountainmatt wrote:This one has more hours but might be a fair comparison.

http://alaskaslist.com/1/posts/10_Trans ... 180hp.html

Actually, no comparison at all....note that this one says "older recover", whatever that means, like maybe still the original fabric. A little too vague in my opinion, and if it's been in Southeast AK for long, it's seen a LOT of moisture and salt air, and probably landed on a lot of sand beaches with salt water.

Not a reasonable comparison to a newly rebuilt airplane.

I probably wouldn't shy away from buying a Cub with the drooping ailerons, but I'd disconnect them RIGHT AWAY. I have flown one airplane with that mod, and in my opinion, it's a really bad modification. Note that CC doesn't hardly sell those these days, and there's a reason.

MTV

mtv wrote:I probably wouldn't shy away from buying a Cub with the drooping ailerons, but I'd disconnect them RIGHT AWAY. I have flown one airplane with that mod, and in my opinion, it's a really bad modification. Note that CC doesn't hardly sell those these days, and there's a reason.

MTV

That is quite interesting, why do you say that MTV? Did it increase the tendancy to drop a wing or something like that?

I'm curious too. The owner of this told me that it took him about 4-5 hours of flying to get used to the nuances, but that he then learned to be able to fly the plane "way slower" and felt more in control. His only gripe was crosswind landings. He said that were he to do more flying where he would regularly encounter xwinds, then he might disconnect them.

If you had been around cubs long you'd know that it was quite common for a spectacular looking cub to fly, well... Ok... ... While at he same time a total beater would fly like a J3 on steroids (read; spectacular) it's only been the last 10 or so years that guys that had been measuring all the cubs they could get their hands on put it all together. They figured out just how significant of a difference, just a tiny deviation in the AOI made in the flight charecteristics of a cub.

I flew the same cub for about a ten years and even did a whole recover before I decided to have Wayne Mackey put mine in his jig and make it 'right'. The difference is startling, and let me add that I personally helped him pin it in the jig when I took it up there. After seeing how little it was off from his jig, I seriously doubted I would notice any change at all... Wrong...

Since I doubt you are looking for an airplane to tear the fabric off and start cutting and welding tubes, I would suggest reading the 'thrust line' thread on the Supercub site a few dozen times, and then buying a small digital smart level to measure any prospective cub purchase.

Even if you don't intend on extracting every ounce of performance out of a Supercub, the person you try to sell it to later on may.... I would buy a cub with fabric falling off, long before I bought bling with wings that didn't measure up...

Take care, Rob

BTW, even though I referenced the thrust line thread, these measurements are critical, regardless of whether you choose to do the thrust line mod or not. They a just mandatory for the thrust line mod to work, but highly desirable otherwise.

Is it based in western maine? Has the factory Red and white scheme? if it is it's a nice plane, and sure does go straight up.. doesn't cruse very fast though, has a 41 pitch prop i believe

Tom

Re; the wing on that cub....

It is not very desirable in today's market...

Nobody, but nobody in a Supercub has droops today because they wanted them. Usually it is a case of what was already there.... No worries, for a few hundred clams you can go to Dakota tips and have a better performing tip and a better looking tip.. Win-win...

Re; the droops, they are CC's, and nobody likes them either (except me ) if you are the type that doesn't fly enough to keep sharp and current, than these will most certainly hurt you. If you have learned to be a master of the airplane as opposed to a passenger, you might like them. But it all depends on how you fly and what you do... You will lose roll control, and it already has lacking roll control by virtue of the long wings and droop. Like I said, I like this set up, and I bet Logan would too

This is essentially that wing ( looks just like mine ) with the ailerons pushed to the tip (highly recommended if your going to have a long wing) and Dakota tips.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPSElw8q ... ata_player

Rob, I may be misunderstanding you here. It does not have droop tips, but it does have drooped ailerons. Just like the one in the vid that you made reference to. The ailerons go all the way to the wingtips. Looks like Cubdriver is making pretty good use of the same setup...
Thanks for the advice on the thrustline. I'll look that up asap.

Rob is correct in that there is a lot of variability in the way Cubs fly, and much of that is related to different shape fuselages. And they are all different shapes. Another variable is caused by the later model metal flaps and ailerons.

I only flew the one airplane with the drooping ailerons. It was fresh out of CC rebuild, and was an older airplane rebuilt by them. It did not have extended wings...it had round tips and otherwise stock wings. I used it as a loaner for a week. Later on, I flew it on a ferry trip to maintenance and the droop ailerons had been disabled, so apparently someone else shared my opinion of the mod.
I did not suggest anything unsafe about that mod, but in any case, a stock wing Cub has a LOT less aileron than one with extended ailerons anyway, and I've not flown one with the droop aileron AND extended ailerons. I'll leave that to the experts .

MTV

My bad Pundy, I was thinking of a specific cub when I was thinking droop tips as well. Although I wouldn't be surprised if that one didn't have droops in the past, since you say it has squared tips now.
They pushed out ailerons are to compensate for the longer wing, and it's lacking roll rate. My ailerons are ridiculously long, and the roll rate is in fact better than a stock winged cub, but as expected the stick pressures are greater too. I would have preferred the Dakota wing, which uses a shorter than stock aileron, pushed all the way out and a super long flap.

I like that wing, drooping ailerons and all, but it is not a wing to get sloppy with in crosswinds... Mike is correct in that most that CC sold have been removed. This is not surprising when you consider the bulk of the market for the old top cubs (I don't mean that in a negative way, it just is what it is...)
A interesting note is that the bulk of those removed kits have been retrofitted to work 'on demand' as in not full time, and are no back on experimentals...

Take care, Rob