Overpriced Cubs

[Indabush]

Do people really pay 90K or even 150K+ for cubs as listed on some web pages? If you paid that much for a cub, would you even think of landing off an airport? The average working man can't afford cub crafter cubs. In my opinion I think that the cub prices, along with spam cans are way overvalued. I mean look at what you get! Anyone with some common sense knows that these are simple machines, not leading edge technology. I guess we have to thank the lawyers who buy cub crafter cubs for this. The world is too sue happy, so we have to pay. Any solutions?

[diggler]

dlete

[SJ]

While I believe there are ways to keep the costs in line, when people ask me about learning to fly, I tell them it is expensive. It is probably the cheapest for those who have an A&P AI license or a great relationship with such a person, but still, if it is just a hobby - as it is for many of us - it is pricey.

Let's say you have a $40K PA18 special like I bought in 2000. It is not the most desireable model since it is 135hp, and it does not have flaps, and it has toe brakes.

Insurance, if you are not renting it out, as mentioned in another post is around $1300 per year give or take, hangar (if you don't have one at home like I would like to have) is another $1200 (for the lucky) and $3600 and up for the not so lucky.

Then there is avgas at $2.30 - $3.25 per gallon, adding $15-$20 per hour to the operating cost. If you are the average Joe you fly around 30 hours per year (scary), but probably cub pilots (since they have more fun) fly at least 100. I flew the cub 200 hours last year - $4000 in gas.

How about maintenance? Everybody knows this can be as little as a $200 annual to $30,000 in recovering and engine overhaul. I probably spent $4500 on the cub so far this year - not counting the $15000 prop ding teardown incident.

So how does it add up? To a lot of money, no matter how cheap the plane was to start with. All of my toys - guitars, cars, airplanes, computers, I buy to use not to look at, so I would have no problem bouncing around in the crud in a $150,000 airplane, I just can't afford one!

sj

[swisscubpilot]

.. adding $15-$20 per hour to the operating cost. Haha! In beautiful Switzerland this amounts to $46, in good old Germany to $60.

Hans

[SJ]

Hans, that's because we are willing to go to war to keep our oil prices cheap. We could pump it out of the ground in missouri or kansas (thousands of inactive wells) but we would have to charge more for it...

Great shot of your airplane in your avatar. I'd like to see the full size picture of that one.

sj

[swisscubpilot]

Hi Steve

I am about to collect at least one picture of every glacier plane in Switzerland. There are already a view behind that link: http://gletscherflug.ch/gallery/album04?&page=1

And of course we have the same basic oil prices in Europe but much much more taxes on them. :cry:

Hans

[PiperJoe]

Yes, its really expensive ( about: 110~140?=140$ per hour!) to rent a Cub in good old Germany.
It`s also hard to find a flight training school in Germany offering Flight training in Super Cubs. Normally here we fly Katanas, Cessnas 150er and other boring things.... :wink:

[Speedo]

When friends ask (or the Fun Police hassles me) about the expense of flying I always reply this way: many people go through life spending their money in an effort to find something that makes them happy. Some people build big houses, others buy cars, or clothes, or jewelery. Many folks go through their whole life spending loads of money, and never discover the thing that brings them genuine, repeatable happiness. Flying my Super Cruiser, making the aviation friendships, visiting new places, and seeing the incredible beauty of North America provides me that happiness. And therefore the $10,000 to $15,000 I spend on it each year is entirely justified.

[diggler]

delete

[T.J.]

delete

[T.J.]

Joe and Hans:
Did you guys ever try burning that expensive whisky in a Cub? I bet Chivas would burn real good and probably is cheaper than AvGAs. Just a thought.
Kinda be a shame but, you could save the dregs from the chamois for after the flight.

[Psychonaut]

Hi all,

@ joe and Hans,

I am just a student pilot and hopefully i will get my licence soon (scheiss wetter zur Zeit...as you probably know). I found out during my flying that the actual "stick-and-rudder" is the most fun to me. Just flying long X/C in a PA-28 with radio navigation from VOR to VOR is not quite what i call real fun....I am called the "Platzrundenjunkie" and spot landings are the most fun to me (4 bucks landing fee!, doing circuits in germany is kind of expensive too..). After all landing is the most stick and rudder i get..

I was always interested in cubs. Besides that i want to do some aerobatics as soon as i have my 50h required hours together...Some people say that is too early. But i still plan to try it out that soon.

What i would like to ask is if you know any place in the NRW area where i could get some tailwheel lessons, preferable in a Cub ;-)


....and perhaps i will visit Hans in a couple of years to get some mountain flying... :-)

cu
Mirko

[swisscubpilot]

Hi Mirko

I guess over time we have to consider to open a German Corner in that great forum. It should have a few German speaking Super Cub owners and pilots out there.

There are about 150 Super Cubs registered in Germany, 50 in Switzerland and 40 in Austria.

Take care and many happy landings
und Frohe Weihnachten

Hans

[Anne]

Steve, did I miss some post somewhere? What prop ding?

To the original question, when I first started looking for a Supercub, I had no idea how expensive a simple tube & fabric plane would be, especially when compared to a Cherokee. (Cherokees have their usefulness, too, and I loved flying them). But I wanted to have FUN again while flying, not just being able to get from one place to another.

The more I looked, the worse shape the planes were in, and the more expensive they were. Through the Cub Club newsletter want ads, I found a homebuilt Super Sport, built from plans in 1985, one owner, GPS, transponder, tundra tires, recently overhauled 150 hp engine, excellent condition, $45,000. It won't appreciate like a factory-built plane, but I didn't get it for an investment - it was to have fun again! It's as close to a "real" cub as you can get, down to all its idiosyncrasies. The compass doesn't work, the greenhouse leaks, the seats are uncomfortable...but at this point I wouldn't trade it for anything else!

The point here is that maybe you should look for a homebuilt instead of a factory-built. I can't use mine for commerical purposes, but I didn't intend to anyway.

Anne.

[Cub junkie]

Good points Anne. I will have about 28 large in my homebuilt cub when Im done and I dont care about flying it commercially either.I did have to build almost every part myself to get in this price range with a used set of PA-18 95 wings. With a son headed into college next fall and another one close behind I cant even consider a real cub. Also on another part of this board there is the ugly "I" word...insurance, I just plan on liability only like I did on another homebuilt I had before. Risky in the sense of losing my toy but just my way of being able to participate in the "non Cherokee" world.

[don d]

Back in the latter part of the last century I built a bushmaster with a mid time IO-360 and constant speed for less than $20K. Learn to weld, with $40K and about 2500 Hrs., some can build a new cub from scratch with new everything. Less $ if you put some good used stuff on it.

I have more time than money. I know I could get a part time job and work that 2500 hours, add the 40K and buy a good used cub, but what fun would that be?????

:x-mas:

Don

[SuperCub MD]

Anne, I did learn a little about your plane through the grape vine. It sounds like it was built right, basically a exact copy of a certified 18. It also seems that the builder had a LOT more in it, (just out of pocket, not labor) than it was sold for. Building is rarely a cheap way to get a plane. The only good reason to build is if you really love to build, and have the skills to do it properly.

[Dave Calkins]

Amen to that last post from SuperMD.

The only reason to build your own is for the love of it, And you need more than that, you need the ability and patience to do it right as well as the love for it.

Dave Calkins.

[Anne]

Mark, you're right, there was about $75k put into my plane, besides Don's time. Some parts were new, some fabricated, some used (but in good condition). A number of upgrades were added through the years, including the tundra tires, enngine overhaul, GPS , and transponder. Don didn't fly it much, so even though it was completed in 1985, there were only 200 hours on it when we bought it this summer, and only 100 hrs on the engine SMOH. This was his fourth plane, and he's got his own auto repair shop, so having the experience and the tools helps a lot.

I had mixed feelings about buying a homebuilt. Would a homebuilt be accepted by REAL Supercub pilots? What would it be worth when I needed to sell it? Would I be able to sell it at all? Insurance? Repairs? The last question was the easiest to solve: I can do repairs myself! Insurance: being a fairly low-time pilot (480 hours), and a new tailwheel pilot, I expect I'm paying about what I would if this had been a factory-built cub. Acceptance: so far I haven't gotten any razzing at all (at least to my face), which is a lot less than PA12driver gets!

So my advice still stands: a homebuilt, or possibly a rebuild, if money is short and time is available. If you buy a homebuilt, be sure you know the builder and his reputation, and it's not his first plane.

Anne.

[SuperCub MD]

The experimental question popped up again. Here is a real life example of a experimental Super Cub (Annes).

The builder spent 75K out of pocket on the plane. This was in 1985 dollars, purchasing the same parts and components could easily exceed 100K today.

He flew the plane for 200 hours and sold it for a 30K loss, with 0 compensation for time spent building, and as a side bonus, is now liable for the aircraft as the manufacturer.

Anne, you did good buying this Cub, it's the builder who gets the short end of the stick. The painful truth is that the same 75K in 1985 would have bought the nicest, best equipped certified Super Cub on the market. He could have flown it, instead of building, and probably ended up selling it for a lot more than he had in it, and not have to worry about the liability he has placed on himself and his heirs.

[diggler]

delete

[SJ]

Sign somebody else's name....

[Clay Hammond]

my dad and I had this discussion awhile back and what we came up with was purely hypothetical. Tell me what you guys think. What if the Owner/builder decomissioned his experimental aircraft, removed his/her dataplate and sold the plane in question as simply a list of materials? Then you attach your own dataplate under your name and get a new sign off by the feds. Wouldn't that effectively transfer liability to you? Might require a friendly fed (i.e. one that you know real well), but otherwise what's stopping you? I'm in no way implying that it be a shady deal or anything. In fact thats why I bring it up, is this a scenario that would fly legally?

[FlipFlop]

Then you attach your own dataplate under your name and get a new sign off by the feds

You have to prove to the FAA that you built 51%... Would be hard to prove with a completed, obviously flown, airplane...

[djfraudman]

Is there anyway to get out from the liability of being the one who built the homebuilt? Is there a wavier that the buyer can sign to exclude the builder from liability?

In general a buyer, if he/she would be so silly, can waive their right to sue you and that waiver may be effective as to them but the waiver probably wouldn't extent to any subsequent purchasers. Check with your friendly local attorney.

[diggler]

delete

[SuperCub MD]

I tried to buy a experimental once. The owner wanted to sell it, and I wanted to buy it. The owner/builder had his attorney try to come up with any way possible that would remove the owner/builder from the liability, and I was willing to do whatever it would take to remove him from liability, (sign something - even signing something saying the aircraft was unairworthy and should never be flown, sell it as "parts", ect.). They could come up with nothing that was bullet proof, and the aircraft was never sold. The deregister and sold as parts doesn't work. The owner/builder is still liable for the parts.

The biggest this is, I could sign something, then I would not be able to sue - BUT, If I killed myself in the thing, my family could sue. If I hurt someone else, they could sue. If I sold it to someone else, they could sue, and on and on.

Basically, if the owner/builder or his heirs has enough assests that he is worth going after, they will go after him.

[FlipFlop]

I know of several exp aircraft that were flying, then deregistered and sold as parts and the buyer got a new n-number and data tag.

Well, obviously you live in the best FSDO district... Most FSDOs, that I'm aware of, won't do it...

[diggler]

delete

[SuperCub MD]

Taking off data plates/data tags?

Holy crap, here we go again......

[diggler]

delete.

[FlipFlop]

The ones that I now of were done by DARs. I doubt many FSDOs would do it.

Diggler...

FSDO, DAR, whomever, it still has to be 51% fabricated to qualify for amateur-built... If the DAR is giving away certificates, he probably won't be a DAR long... There's still experimental/exhibition, but that's very restrictive compared to am-blt...

[Steve Pierce]

How about the shops that build your experimental for you and take pictures of you holding a drill or bucking a rivet. It does go on. It gets away from the whole idea of the experimental category but it happens. As far as liability, its way far out of hand. I went to the big city a couple of weeks ago and wanted to see what the big fuss was over Starbucks coffee. I thought this stuff must be awesome for $3 a cup, hell it wasn't even hot. The baldheaded girl behind the counter said you had to ask for extra hot. I guess this is a result of the women sueing McDonalds after she spilled hot coffee in her lap. I'm going back in the hanger so I can be liabale for some more stuff.

Steve

[diggler]

delete

[Cub junkie]

I sold a Pitts Special "in parts" when I had my fun with it (380hrs) I sold it.I kept my N number and the airworthiness certificate. It left on a trailer, so I may have built it but I had no part in the reassembly so am I still liable? Its still flying with I believe a third owner.

[SuperCub MD]

Absolutely, expecially if your pockets are deeper than any of the subsequent owners.

If anything ever happens with that Pitts, how quick do you think all the other owners will point a finger at you to save themselves? A scary thought, expecially with something like a Pitts if you don't know the caliper of pilot that is now flying it. Even after you are gone, your estate (your kids) can still be held liable if that Pitts is still out there somewhere. Sleep well...

[Cubus Maximus]

Mark,

Doesn't the new 18 year liability limit rule (that protects the GA manufacturers) also apply to a homebuilder as manufacturer?

A lot of those old S1C Pitts should be older than that now.

Brad

[PA12driver]

Am I missing something? Doesn't any EXP licensed aircraft not in the possesion of the "original" builder still require an "Annual" inspection? So the only thing gained is the ability to use "non PMA stamped parts", no savings on maintenance.

I do believe there will "sooner than later" be modification made to the regulations as the "amateur built, owner built, owner assisted, kit plane, or what ever it it called is literally running over the GA market, and the "Manufactures of single engine "factory" planes will become extinct if the Litigation continues.

Tim (Thanks Anne for the Plug) I am always getting picked on!! sob-sob! Poor ol me, I am going to have to file suit I guess!!

No actually I enjoy it!

[cubdrvr]

EXP aircraft require a "condition" inspection annually......it can be performed by the original builder or an A&P.

[Steve Pierce]

The owner not neccisarily the builder can do maintenance on it also.

Steve

[Cub junkie]

For the strife in the GA market,paticulary single eng. we can all thank the Lawyers who always find a way to sue for their clients judgement.

[SuperCub MD]

That's a good question Brad. I have thought of that, and really don't know. I would hope that the liability limit would cover builders as well as manufacturers, but I don't know for sure. Remember that the liability limit, when passed, was not retroactive, so anything built before it came about would not be protected anyway.

[Ken Grindlay]

Well, I always try to look at the up side of things. So I guess in this legal climate, if my girlfriend gets pregnant I can always sue Budwieser :drinking:
Ken

[jk]

Amen bro, I think to many cubs of any variant, are way overprised. I remenber not to long ago about the state selling off a cub that was confiscated from a guy who was operating a guide op with out a license. It was parked at LK Hood and I took a look see. They sold that aircraft and I didn't win the bid so I called them and asked what they got for it?? Well come to find out that nothing on that cub belonged to the airframe (homebuilt) and some guy in Eagle River gave over 40K. I don't even know if parting it out you would have got your $$ back? When I first tought about buyin a cub, an Ol' timer told me to be patient and wait for "your deal" and that they are out there!! I did and I bought my SC with most AK mods on it a strong engine, nice and straight with 20 years of extra parts, 2 sets of 26", skis,tail ski, fat tail wheel, extra legs, good fabric ( well maintained) all for under 37K. I know other guys who do the same, and I am thinkin of "Hey maybe I should find these guys($$$$) and start selling cubs........

[RedBaron]

JK,

You ever know a guy named Tom Hillis or Jerry Stansel from up Fairbanks way?
Thought since you were from 'around' there...
Andy

[jk]

Hey Red Baron,
I don't know of these guys personnally, you will have to excuse me though, I've been a grunt ( ground pounder) for a long time and just recently got my SC. Only been around FAI for 5 years. Came up from Peters Creek. I'am triing to learn as much as I can about SC's, as I have known to many friends that are gone now and their airplanes are planted all over this beautiful land. Sorry! :lol:

[Bill Cangero]

After all these years you would think that somone :o would have redesigned the fuselage to use aluminum angles, gussets and rivets--like the Bede 4. Things go together very easily.


Spar blanks are about 100$ or so in Aircraft Spruce Inc. See The Dawn Patrol Home page for chap and easy rib building methods. Use equivalent round 4130 tube in place of streamlined struts.

Forget PMA parts, forget overpriced junkyard stuff.

Think experimental for a huge reduction in cost.

Actually, if there are any volunteer engineers out there to develop plans, I would love to be the first builder of an aluminum angle fuselage.

[06h]

Yes, its really expensive ( about: 110~140?=140$ per hour!) to rent a Cub in good old Germany.
It`s also hard to find a flight training school in Germany offering Flight training in Super Cubs. Normally here we fly Katanas, Cessnas 150er and other boring things.... :wink:

At those rates it might pay to take a vacation in the U.S. At my local airfield (Hampton NH), the Cub rents for $65/hr. Add $22 for an instructor. You can't solo unless you have insurance, which might be a problem. Hampton is a turf field near the Atlantic coast.

A couple years ago I rented a Super Cub in Chandler AZ. At that time the rate was $70 an hour, $30 for the instructor. That's a controlled field, asphalt, with a dirt strip not far away for fun landings.

The other week I did a bush-pilot course at Andover NJ. That was a wonderful three days. The Husky and instructor cost $150 an hour. That was all flight time; the chalkboard instruction came with. The flight school also has an L-4 for taildragger training. Andover is very nice countryside with lots of private, informal airstrips to practice on.

Ideally, you'd want to rent a car for any of these places, though you could get by in Hampton with the loan of a bicycle.

- Dan Ford

[Psychonaut]

thats the reason so many europeans go to the USA for flying vacation. If you managed to save your money to buy an airplane the struggle only begins. The opertaing and maintanance costs in europe, and especially germany, are extremly high. Avgas is @ 7,5$/G right now. One of the main problem is our social security system, wich gives everybody a high level of security (medical care, loss of work, support for the elderly,etc....), but just costs too much for our population wich gets older very fast. That makes labour very expensive. An hour of labour costs at least 50$ and goes up quick with special skills of the workers.

I just payed 115$/h for my first super cub (L-18C) instruction. And this was only the costs, just a marginal profit as this was a flying club.

Therefore european pilots are very interested in the new jet-fuel/Diesel engines, as fuel costs are the biggest item in the cost structure of operating an airplane. Fuel flow is about 1/2 and diesel costs <5$/G! Still a lot compared to US prices though......but variable costs can be lowered >60% with these engines.

cu
Mirko "Psychonaut"

[mvivion]

I may be mistaken here, but it was my understanding that the original builder of a homebuilt aircraft can apply to the FAA for a repairman's certificate, which allows that person to conduct maintenance on that airplane (and only that plane). A certificated A & P or IA can also work on it, but can a subsequent owner actually do work on the plane, without supervision of a "repairman"?

My question is: the subsequent owner, since they weren't the builder, can't sign off periodic inspections on the plane, but can they perform other maintenance on the plane, which would otherwise normally require the services of a certified repairman?

Just too lazy to look it up myself, sorry,

Mike Vivion

[FlipFlop]

I may be mistaken here, but it was my understanding that the original builder of a homebuilt aircraft can apply to the FAA for a repairman's certificate, which allows that person to conduct maintenance on that airplane (and only that plane). A certificated A & P or IA can also work on it, but can a subsequent owner actually do work on the plane, without supervision of a "repairman"?

My question is: the subsequent owner, since they weren't the builder, can't sign off periodic inspections on the plane, but can they perform other maintenance on the plane, which would otherwise normally require the services of a certified repairman?

Just too lazy to look it up myself, sorry,

Mike Vivion

Well, according to the local FSDO...

Sec. 43.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
prescribes rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance,
rebuilding, and alteration of any--
(1) Aircraft having a U.S. airworthiness certificate;
(2) Foreign-registered civil aircraft used in common carriage or carriage
of mail under the provisions of Part 121, 127, or 135 of this chapter; and
(3) Airframe, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and component parts
of such aircraft.
(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental
airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of
airworthiness certificate had previously been issued for that aircraft.

However, the Operating Limitations attached to the Airworthiness Certificate state that the required Condition Inspections must be performed by an A&P (doesn't require an IA) or the aircraft builder, if certificated as a repairman...

Consequently, anyone may perform maintenance other than the Condition Inspections...

[mvivion]

Thanks, that was a whole lot easier than looking up the appropriate section my own self.

In talking to folks who have gone the experimental route, I haven't found a single one who told me that it wound up being any cheaper than certificated. They all agree that having the ability to modify the airplane, to use non-tso parts, etc, is compensation in itself, but, when it was all said and done, their homebuilt airplanes (and a couple of these are Cub clones) were just as expensive as a certificated airplane.

I'd take on a homebuilt project in a heartbeat, except I'm doing some commercial operations.

The liability long term is certainly something to think about as well.

I once asked a fellow who should know what Cessna does with it's prototype airplanes when flight test is done. His answer was that they crush them, and put ALL parts in a locked yard, never to be part of an aircraft again. Those parts were on an "experimental" airplane, and besides were subjected to flight test.

Mike V

[JP]

I wrote some of the briefing papers for the general aviation product liability reform back in '92. I remember one case where a completely trashed Piper Lance was cobbled back together by an unscrupulous individual and sold as a certified, airworthy airplane after the prior owner took all sorts of pains to make sure that when the airplane went to the junkyard it stayed there (where it belonged). Data plates, etc. were all removed and the aircraft was taken off the registry. Sure enough, when the Lazarus Piper went down again not only did Piper get sued but the poor ex-owner had the sheriff at the door with a lawsuit summons....

It was a pretty good argument at the time that the "tail" of liability had to end somewhere. In retrospect, what we hadn't expected nor anticipated was the shifting of the burden over onto the FBO's, who became the next target once the tail of liability on the manufacturers and prior owners became a bit more difficult. Up went the insurance and, well, you know the rest of the story... :cry:

[HydroCub]

[quote]I remember one case where a completely trashed Piper Lance was cobbled back together by an unscrupulous individual and sold as a certified, airworthy airplane after the prior owner took all sorts of pains to make sure that when the airplane went to the junkyard it stayed there (where it belonged). Data plates, etc. were all removed and the aircraft was taken off the registry. Sure enough, when the Lazarus Piper went down again not only did Piper get sued but the poor ex-owner had the sheriff at the door with a lawsuit summons.... [quote]

JP,

I thought that once you filed with the FAA that an aircraft is destroyed that it could never receive an airworthiness certificate again. Surely this was done..??

Remember the plastic inserts in the AeroShell oil quart caps? I know of an AirCoupe that had an engine failure from oil starvation from those little things getting into the oil bladder and plugging the intake. The owner begged to have it repaired and Shell wrote him a check, took all the logbooks & papers and paid the local A&P to make sure it never flew again. He was allowed to salvage parts as payment for destroying the majority of the airframe.

[JP]

JP,

I thought that once you filed with the FAA that an aircraft is destroyed that it could never receive an airworthiness certificate again. Surely this was done..??

I believe that is the case and it was, but when it came back to life--somehow (remember, we've got some underhanded dealings having transpired) it was as an airworthy Piper with a "tail" for the lawyers to follow. [/quote]


Remember the plastic inserts in the AeroShell oil quart caps? I know of an AirCoupe that had an engine failure from oil starvation from those little things getting into the oil bladder and plugging the intake. The owner begged to have it repaired and Shell wrote him a check, took all the logbooks & papers and paid the local A&P to make sure it never flew again. He was allowed to salvage parts as payment for destroying the majority of the airframe.[/quote]

A perfect example. Sad, but true. Also sad that the A&P will get sued for the parts, as well as the original manufacturer of the parts if the limitations on liability have not been yet (measured in years). I know an awful lot of mechanics who won't touch work outside of the umbrella liability policy of the shop they work for.

[Steve Pierce]

The guy that put te Lance back together didn't have any money, therefore why would they sue them. Piper and the previous owner must have had more assets. I had to drop my insurance due to the high cost. I figure I don't have anything to make it worth while to sue me and I have very few customers thus limiting my liability.

[FlipFlop]

[quote="HydroCubI thought that once you filed with the FAA that an aircraft is destroyed that it could never receive an airworthiness certificate again. Surely this was done..?? [/quote]

Unfortunately, this is not the case... According to the local FSDO, the FAA doesn't make a determination if an aircraft can be rebuilt... If aircraft reported destroyed were not allowed an airworthiness certificate, we would have alot less Bell 47 series helicopters around...