Rebuilt Super Cub vs New CubCrafters Top Cub ?
- Thread starter idahofly
- Start date
planecrazy
Registered User
Lincoln,Maine
Rebuilt supercub or new Cubcrafters Top Cub
I second the motion on the new plane because of corrosion issues if nothing else. I fly my 1953 Supercub 100 plus hours a year and the thought does enter my mind each flight that the airframe may not be as strong as it need be if I overstress it through inexperience or agressive maneuvers. I believe the Top Cub is built to withstand the rigors often encountered when flying in the bush. Price is not an issue when it comes to your life or more importantly the life of your passenger. but, I still love my 1953 Supercub and She will sure look fine when those new 31 inch radials go on nthis spring! planecrazy.....
I second the motion on the new plane because of corrosion issues if nothing else. I fly my 1953 Supercub 100 plus hours a year and the thought does enter my mind each flight that the airframe may not be as strong as it need be if I overstress it through inexperience or agressive maneuvers. I believe the Top Cub is built to withstand the rigors often encountered when flying in the bush. Price is not an issue when it comes to your life or more importantly the life of your passenger. but, I still love my 1953 Supercub and She will sure look fine when those new 31 inch radials go on nthis spring! planecrazy.....
flagold
Registered User
Abbeville, Alabama
Agree with the above: no substitute for new if price is not a factor.
There?s so many variables to a rebuild there?s really no way to compare without price being a factor (are the wings good, fuselage, how many instruments can be re-used, etc.). As Johnny said: new is new.
And in SuperCubs, there really isn't a way to compare price realistically, since there's the nostalgia factor in there you pay for.
If you go to the CubCrafters site: http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/products/newcubs/newcubs.asp
and spec out a new cub with all the things a Scout or Husky already comes with and the equipment you want, you?ll probably end up here:
http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/scout/sctprice.htm
or here: http://www.aviataircraft.com/aircraft/husky_spec.htm
and end up having twice the fun on a 1/3 less gas for a similar or less money (in fact, IFR, the CC SC is more than either, minus the constant speed prop and performance)
Perf:
Scout: http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/scout/sctspecs.htm
CC SuperCub: http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/products/newcubs/performance.asp
Husky: http://www.aviataircraft.com/aircraft/husky_perf.htm
If you go here:
http://www.aerosport.com/husky_store/index.htm
and spec out item for item (CC add 46 gal tanks, etc., to get to a similar plane) on that top Husky, you?ll be shocked at what you end up paying . . . It even looks better for the Scout, as the Scout has a lower initial cost (link up above).
If it's a new SC you want, by all means get one, you'll have a blast with it!
Matt
There?s so many variables to a rebuild there?s really no way to compare without price being a factor (are the wings good, fuselage, how many instruments can be re-used, etc.). As Johnny said: new is new.
And in SuperCubs, there really isn't a way to compare price realistically, since there's the nostalgia factor in there you pay for.
If you go to the CubCrafters site: http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/products/newcubs/newcubs.asp
and spec out a new cub with all the things a Scout or Husky already comes with and the equipment you want, you?ll probably end up here:
http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/scout/sctprice.htm
or here: http://www.aviataircraft.com/aircraft/husky_spec.htm
and end up having twice the fun on a 1/3 less gas for a similar or less money (in fact, IFR, the CC SC is more than either, minus the constant speed prop and performance)
Perf:
Scout: http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/newac/scout/sctspecs.htm
CC SuperCub: http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/products/newcubs/performance.asp
Husky: http://www.aviataircraft.com/aircraft/husky_perf.htm
If you go here:
http://www.aerosport.com/husky_store/index.htm
and spec out item for item (CC add 46 gal tanks, etc., to get to a similar plane) on that top Husky, you?ll be shocked at what you end up paying . . . It even looks better for the Scout, as the Scout has a lower initial cost (link up above).
If it's a new SC you want, by all means get one, you'll have a blast with it!
Matt
Crash
GONE WEST
Nikiski Alaska
New vs Used
Are you going to fly it or polish it? I don't know of anyone here in Alaska that is really flying the Bush hard that is doing it in a Cub Crafters $150,000 Cub. The best Cub for the bush is a mechanically sound, dope finish (with a few patches), Borer prop, heavy gear, and 29-31" tires with a market value of....say $50,000 to $65,000. Now you can go out and have a good time and not worry about when you go over on your back or put it up on it's nose. Would you go out and buy a new $40,000 pickup truck, then go to the gravel pit and have a front end loader dump a load of rocks in the bed. Of course not. The $150,000 Cub Crafters Cub is good for airport to airport and long easy strips. I think the guy that would buy one of these also has a Hummer in his garage. Crash
Are you going to fly it or polish it? I don't know of anyone here in Alaska that is really flying the Bush hard that is doing it in a Cub Crafters $150,000 Cub. The best Cub for the bush is a mechanically sound, dope finish (with a few patches), Borer prop, heavy gear, and 29-31" tires with a market value of....say $50,000 to $65,000. Now you can go out and have a good time and not worry about when you go over on your back or put it up on it's nose. Would you go out and buy a new $40,000 pickup truck, then go to the gravel pit and have a front end loader dump a load of rocks in the bed. Of course not. The $150,000 Cub Crafters Cub is good for airport to airport and long easy strips. I think the guy that would buy one of these also has a Hummer in his garage. Crash
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
Crash,
Thank you for describing my cub! Priced a little low but, hey I am not selling it I am flying it! the other day I ran a hose over it cause the mud was so stinking thick that I lost 5 mph (no kidding) I had a blasT, I don't think there is a "new Top Cub" or a "husky" or "260hp-wide gear Maule" that would have even thought of going with me?? Yeh I still got 2-3 tears on the stabilizer, duct tape on a couple of holes and, yeh I will probably fixt them at least through silver (oh yeh, I can do that cause it is dope not paint).
I have nothing against those pretty city airplanes, (I have a corvette that I don't drive in the mud either) Just don't compare them to a "Bush plane" THEY AREN'T!!
If money is not an object buy one of each and join the fun! or put it to work!
See ya this summer!
Tim
Thank you for describing my cub! Priced a little low but, hey I am not selling it I am flying it! the other day I ran a hose over it cause the mud was so stinking thick that I lost 5 mph (no kidding) I had a blasT, I don't think there is a "new Top Cub" or a "husky" or "260hp-wide gear Maule" that would have even thought of going with me?? Yeh I still got 2-3 tears on the stabilizer, duct tape on a couple of holes and, yeh I will probably fixt them at least through silver (oh yeh, I can do that cause it is dope not paint).
I have nothing against those pretty city airplanes, (I have a corvette that I don't drive in the mud either) Just don't compare them to a "Bush plane" THEY AREN'T!!
If money is not an object buy one of each and join the fun! or put it to work!
See ya this summer!
Tim
flagold
Registered User
Abbeville, Alabama
Well, who would have thought that for once, even Crash and I can agree on something. 
By the time I got around to the high dollar cubs they were for film work only and nicey-nice jobs. Few put that much money into one to get it dirty (including me). 4083Z did the tough stuff (a $35,000 A-model beater) and was the best performer of any I had (total stock, see most abused thread).
By the time you get all the mods put on one to make it nice enough to put under glass, it really isn't a cub anymore in my opinion. It's a heck of a lot nicer, much more expensive (in that exercise above CC SC is right at $170,000 to get the same equipment a $150,000 Husky or an even cheaper Scout already has and you still don't have a constant speed prop), more usable with the added baggage and all, but it's no longer the SuperCub of Piper -- it's much better than Piper's version, but a completely different airplane.
There's quite a few of them for sale in Trade-A-Plane, may make sense to buy a used one if that's what you really want. No wait that way and you'll save some considerable mark-up. 2421S is for sale in SC by somebody named Reid Garrison. That was one of my planes and was a heck of a good flying SC. A little on the heavy side (metal flaps, ailerons, belly), but it had extended baggage, nice seats and a square panel with Garmin 250xl and encoding transponder (when I had it). 150 hp. I don't know the guy, what he'll take, what he's done to it, etc. Just know that was my best flyer. 4083Z was the best performer.
flagold
(now having twice the fun on 1/3 less gas in my Husky!)
By the time I got around to the high dollar cubs they were for film work only and nicey-nice jobs. Few put that much money into one to get it dirty (including me). 4083Z did the tough stuff (a $35,000 A-model beater) and was the best performer of any I had (total stock, see most abused thread).By the time you get all the mods put on one to make it nice enough to put under glass, it really isn't a cub anymore in my opinion. It's a heck of a lot nicer, much more expensive (in that exercise above CC SC is right at $170,000 to get the same equipment a $150,000 Husky or an even cheaper Scout already has and you still don't have a constant speed prop), more usable with the added baggage and all, but it's no longer the SuperCub of Piper -- it's much better than Piper's version, but a completely different airplane.
There's quite a few of them for sale in Trade-A-Plane, may make sense to buy a used one if that's what you really want. No wait that way and you'll save some considerable mark-up. 2421S is for sale in SC by somebody named Reid Garrison. That was one of my planes and was a heck of a good flying SC. A little on the heavy side (metal flaps, ailerons, belly), but it had extended baggage, nice seats and a square panel with Garmin 250xl and encoding transponder (when I had it). 150 hp. I don't know the guy, what he'll take, what he's done to it, etc. Just know that was my best flyer. 4083Z was the best performer.
flagold
(now having twice the fun on 1/3 less gas in my Husky!)
Bob Breeden
Registered User
Alaska
Crash,
I like your thinking on that! The best thing is being able to USE my cub! No reservations about landing so long as it is safe!
New opportune spot? Scope it and LAND. You guys up in Alaska got the same ideas for the most part, I bet. Nothing like all that country to explore and LAND and spend time in with a Cub. Nothing like the practical confidence that comes with a Cub for landing in new spots.
Of course, there are limits. This Cub has been with me for a long time. I want to keep using this Cub for a long time! If the weeds are short enough not to wreck the propellor, and the water the wheels are touching down in is freshwater (not salt), and the surface is smooth enough to keep the nose out of the rocks, and the departure is safe, then let's land.
Rocks, gravel, mud, sand, snow, grass are the essense of good landing spots. Access the country. This cub has explored a ways out on the Aleutians, and in some of the nooks and crannies of the Alaska Range and followed a few of the rivers of the Brooks Range, and is ready to go again. Better, because we've only scratched the surface.
Form follows function. If I got a new Cub, it would have to be set up to do all the same things. One color coat over the silver.
Pavement is just where to get gas.
Sure, Image is Everything. But the image can be that of the intrepid.
Bob Breeden
I like your thinking on that! The best thing is being able to USE my cub! No reservations about landing so long as it is safe!
New opportune spot? Scope it and LAND. You guys up in Alaska got the same ideas for the most part, I bet. Nothing like all that country to explore and LAND and spend time in with a Cub. Nothing like the practical confidence that comes with a Cub for landing in new spots.
Of course, there are limits. This Cub has been with me for a long time. I want to keep using this Cub for a long time! If the weeds are short enough not to wreck the propellor, and the water the wheels are touching down in is freshwater (not salt), and the surface is smooth enough to keep the nose out of the rocks, and the departure is safe, then let's land.
Rocks, gravel, mud, sand, snow, grass are the essense of good landing spots. Access the country. This cub has explored a ways out on the Aleutians, and in some of the nooks and crannies of the Alaska Range and followed a few of the rivers of the Brooks Range, and is ready to go again. Better, because we've only scratched the surface.
Form follows function. If I got a new Cub, it would have to be set up to do all the same things. One color coat over the silver.
Pavement is just where to get gas.
Sure, Image is Everything. But the image can be that of the intrepid.
Bob Breeden
S
StewartB
Wait a second Crash,
New Dakota wings, new Airframes fuselage, new Lycoming 180hp motor, new prop.........how is your plane different than CC's?
And I don't mean that to be criticism. If you want a new plane, and I do, build it. Like Crash's 18, or my 12. CC uses new parts that are readily available to all of us. The airplane is an assembly of parts correctly put together. No magic. CC can do it, you can do it. And if you're afraid to use it because it's pretty, that's your choice. I'd put rocks in my new pickup. That's what it's for. I'll fly my pretty 12 when it's finished. Because that's what it's for. I don't think I'd be more willing to crash an ugly plane than a pretty one. I'm not willing to crash ANY plane. And in the event I do, a nice, new 4130 airframe sounds better than the alternative.
SB
New Dakota wings, new Airframes fuselage, new Lycoming 180hp motor, new prop.........how is your plane different than CC's?
And I don't mean that to be criticism. If you want a new plane, and I do, build it. Like Crash's 18, or my 12. CC uses new parts that are readily available to all of us. The airplane is an assembly of parts correctly put together. No magic. CC can do it, you can do it. And if you're afraid to use it because it's pretty, that's your choice. I'd put rocks in my new pickup. That's what it's for. I'll fly my pretty 12 when it's finished. Because that's what it's for. I don't think I'd be more willing to crash an ugly plane than a pretty one. I'm not willing to crash ANY plane. And in the event I do, a nice, new 4130 airframe sounds better than the alternative.
SB
rebel cub
Registered User
pascagoula, ms
thanks sb
these macho guys were getting me to feel a little wimpy. just two weeks ago i loaded my new pickup with gravel cause thats what its for and is the only truck i got. i bought a new top cub. why did i buy new? for the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can! i'll fly my plane into any spot that is safe and i am going into some remote and rough places. nobody wants to bend their airplane on purpose no matter what it costs. the important thing is your rear end and that is what you don't want to break. if by chance you bend your plane, it can be fixed as it is only material whereas you can't be replaced. my NEW cub is a great performer and can go with the best and it is ok if it gets dirty and it will definitely do the job.
these macho guys were getting me to feel a little wimpy. just two weeks ago i loaded my new pickup with gravel cause thats what its for and is the only truck i got. i bought a new top cub. why did i buy new? for the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can! i'll fly my plane into any spot that is safe and i am going into some remote and rough places. nobody wants to bend their airplane on purpose no matter what it costs. the important thing is your rear end and that is what you don't want to break. if by chance you bend your plane, it can be fixed as it is only material whereas you can't be replaced. my NEW cub is a great performer and can go with the best and it is ok if it gets dirty and it will definitely do the job.
flagold
Registered User
Abbeville, Alabama
Johnny:
A brand new TC and willing to risk it! Hats off. You've got the biggest nuggies of us all . . .
Enjoy that plane!
flagold
http://www.treasuresites.com/huskyapp.mpg
A brand new TC and willing to risk it! Hats off. You've got the biggest nuggies of us all . . .
Enjoy that plane!
flagold
http://www.treasuresites.com/huskyapp.mpg
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
This is getting to be a lot of fun, no real arguments with anyone! It does boil down to "risk management", both the butt and the bird? I do think just like the shiny new car that when driven off the lot we swear we will always handwash? 6 months later we justify the dirt as protection, I mean If I wash it I would probably just scratch it anyway, 3 months later, we don't even notice the dirt on the carpet, the windows haven't been washed on the inside in months (Just like the cub) they only stay shiny if you don't use them.
I too am impressed with the performance of the "new cubs", often envious of the HP and glad to have any of you along to carry what I can't get off the high strips with!
(darn, got to go clean plugs today) better hurry the sun is out and there is Avgas in the tank!
Tim
I too am impressed with the performance of the "new cubs", often envious of the HP and glad to have any of you along to carry what I can't get off the high strips with!
(darn, got to go clean plugs today) better hurry the sun is out and there is Avgas in the tank!
Tim
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
With money no object in the above scenario, I'd choose a rebuild to my specs....ala, Crash.
Elimination of the unnecessaries of the TC would be paramount to best backcountry flying qualities. (Backcountry means landing it wherever you want, or think you can, and not having someone else land someplace you wouldn't, unless he's flying like 700 Cub hours a year.)
I must have an exposed nerve, but Flagold, your posts reek of "oh, my Husky is wonderful" and I get the same feeling as that rant and rave we all had before. Sorry.
A Top Cub would be nice, But......It's heavy empty, like the Husky, and you guys that think you love them, would love them more if they lost a couple-hundred pounds.
You can do that if you build a Cub light. Buy a new fuselage for it, since money's no object. And of course, it's a fresh rebuild, so everything will be in "as new" condition.
I could go on and on.
Rebel, you said you'd fly the TC in to any spot that's safe, and that it will "go with the best". Well, you have fewer "safe" options than a guy with a fresh "light" Cub (the "best"). If you disagree, you just don't know.
And Flagold, you didn't mention that the Scout is available with a constant speed prop, and for a very reasonable price, just like the rest of the Scout package. Maybe you "heavy" Cub clones (Husky included), should have saved about 60 grand by purchasing a Scout. You would have been pleased with the performance.
Dave.....having lots of fun with myself in a rebuilt Cub or new Scout, and pissing away a third less money.
I couldn't help that last part. Flagold, I'm embarassed for you, get off the Husky sell, P---lease.
Elimination of the unnecessaries of the TC would be paramount to best backcountry flying qualities. (Backcountry means landing it wherever you want, or think you can, and not having someone else land someplace you wouldn't, unless he's flying like 700 Cub hours a year.)
I must have an exposed nerve, but Flagold, your posts reek of "oh, my Husky is wonderful" and I get the same feeling as that rant and rave we all had before. Sorry.
A Top Cub would be nice, But......It's heavy empty, like the Husky, and you guys that think you love them, would love them more if they lost a couple-hundred pounds.
You can do that if you build a Cub light. Buy a new fuselage for it, since money's no object. And of course, it's a fresh rebuild, so everything will be in "as new" condition.
I could go on and on.
Rebel, you said you'd fly the TC in to any spot that's safe, and that it will "go with the best". Well, you have fewer "safe" options than a guy with a fresh "light" Cub (the "best"). If you disagree, you just don't know.
And Flagold, you didn't mention that the Scout is available with a constant speed prop, and for a very reasonable price, just like the rest of the Scout package. Maybe you "heavy" Cub clones (Husky included), should have saved about 60 grand by purchasing a Scout. You would have been pleased with the performance.
Dave.....having lots of fun with myself in a rebuilt Cub or new Scout, and pissing away a third less money.
I couldn't help that last part. Flagold, I'm embarassed for you, get off the Husky sell, P---lease.
flagold
Registered User
Abbeville, Alabama
Dave,
Lighten up. I mentioned the Scout prominently above, said it had constant speed, was less money, and gave all the links needed to prove it.
Evidently, hatred of the Husky (or me) is blinding you.
Matt Mattson
http://www.treasuresites.com
Lighten up. I mentioned the Scout prominently above, said it had constant speed, was less money, and gave all the links needed to prove it.
Evidently, hatred of the Husky (or me) is blinding you.
Matt Mattson
http://www.treasuresites.com
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
Matt,-Flagold,
I can assure you there is no Hatred in David D. I just think the "majority" of us, are here to talk about "cubs" not the "other" sorta like a cub planes? If you have constructive comment, we welcome all that "adds value" to our sight, the problem is that when the majority of the treads are sales rhetoric, mumble jumble, about some plane other then the Piper Cub product, you are wasting your breath and bandwidth and space. (by the way), how about sending some of that "saved money" to support this sight?
I did go to the Husky site, and it is obvious that you should be there, it needs some of your enthusiasm for your product!
I don't wish to see our site wither away due to the fact that "cub" enthusiasts can't find anything worth reading cause they have to wade through all the other crap! WE might as well be "www.taildraggersderranged.com"
Tim
I can assure you there is no Hatred in David D. I just think the "majority" of us, are here to talk about "cubs" not the "other" sorta like a cub planes? If you have constructive comment, we welcome all that "adds value" to our sight, the problem is that when the majority of the treads are sales rhetoric, mumble jumble, about some plane other then the Piper Cub product, you are wasting your breath and bandwidth and space. (by the way), how about sending some of that "saved money" to support this sight?
I did go to the Husky site, and it is obvious that you should be there, it needs some of your enthusiasm for your product!
I don't wish to see our site wither away due to the fact that "cub" enthusiasts can't find anything worth reading cause they have to wade through all the other crap! WE might as well be "www.taildraggersderranged.com"
Tim
I owned a Husky once, serial #2098, it weighed 1365 empty, sure was glad it was an A1B so that I could get in and put some gas in it. I sold it. I now have a PA-18 along with a couple of other guys. It is a rebuild using a new fuselage etc. It ain't purty but it only weighs 1190 with a lot of nice mods on it. I have flown it into and out of some of the same places as the Husky and have noticed I have more room to spare. I dropped on to a sandbar on the Brazos River Saturday to go fishing. I could have landed on it twice! The Husky landed nearly that short too though. The getting out is the deal, there is a reasonable size bluff at one end, about 125' high. The Husky made it but, the pucker factor was high, The Super Cub didn't cause any pucker factor at all!
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
FlaMatt, I like Huskies for what they are. I don't hate you, just your less-than-smooth delivery of your Husky attitude.
What I don't like about Huskies, but have solutions for, are as follows (I've been waiting for this chance):
loose nosebowl nutplates
nosebowl contacting and breaking engine baffling
cowl brace channels cracking
air duct rubbing #1 oil return line
throttle linkage
fuel tank vents
rusting steel poprivets on root fairings and flap gap seals
fuel tank covers chafing bottom of fuel tanks
cracking fuel tanks
fuel sight gauge deterioration
moisture in pitot system
fuel peeing out of wingtip vents
paint problems from factory "experiments" (Giant Groans sounding here)
tail brace strut dents from rocks
tail brace strut breakage
flap belcrank cable hdwre hits rib and busts it up when overtraveled by wind
pitch trim cable rubbing side panel
gear flex
brake calipers not removable unless torque plates are removed
ail. pulley bracket at lift strut is misaligned
cables wear at exit from fabric
spade strut hits wing false trailing edge
flap lever design causes contact of hand with very abrasive finish on interior panel
bungee system and safety cables
bungee cover panels and fairings get damaged by normal travel of landing gear
air duct flanges on baffling easily crushed
tailwheel steering horn from rudder is very susceptible to damage
paint trim lines that catch just the edge of baggage door fastener grommets and have to be aligned EVERY damn time you turn the fasteners
Easily chipped paint on struts, gear, tailbraces, tail-pull handles, and tailwheel horn
factory recommendation to tie the stick back and apply full flaps rather than installing gust locks at tiedown
These are common to all Huskies. Sure, all Cubs have issues. You could make a list of them and post them here, too. I said I like Huskys for what they are, and the above is a list of what I don't like about them.
What's scary is....
Much of the above list will have happened on a 20 hour new a/c delivery flight to Alaska from the lower 48.
Other than the mystery finish problems that the factory had for a couple of years, (the chipping paint is still an issue) the only major groan and maybe even scream I have is that these things leave the factory with an air duct laying on the #1 cylinder oil return line. The duct WILL WEAR THROUGH the return line. Matt, what's yours look like? How many hours? Seriously, I'm trying to help here. This is not paybacks for the lists of crashes from the "...vs. Cub..".
Old ones and brand new ones from the factory have most of the above maladies. Beware.
Dave.
PS, ready for the list on the 180/185 series???
What I don't like about Huskies, but have solutions for, are as follows (I've been waiting for this chance):
loose nosebowl nutplates
nosebowl contacting and breaking engine baffling
cowl brace channels cracking
air duct rubbing #1 oil return line
throttle linkage
fuel tank vents
rusting steel poprivets on root fairings and flap gap seals
fuel tank covers chafing bottom of fuel tanks
cracking fuel tanks
fuel sight gauge deterioration
moisture in pitot system
fuel peeing out of wingtip vents
paint problems from factory "experiments" (Giant Groans sounding here)
tail brace strut dents from rocks
tail brace strut breakage
flap belcrank cable hdwre hits rib and busts it up when overtraveled by wind
pitch trim cable rubbing side panel
gear flex
brake calipers not removable unless torque plates are removed
ail. pulley bracket at lift strut is misaligned
cables wear at exit from fabric
spade strut hits wing false trailing edge
flap lever design causes contact of hand with very abrasive finish on interior panel
bungee system and safety cables
bungee cover panels and fairings get damaged by normal travel of landing gear
air duct flanges on baffling easily crushed
tailwheel steering horn from rudder is very susceptible to damage
paint trim lines that catch just the edge of baggage door fastener grommets and have to be aligned EVERY damn time you turn the fasteners
Easily chipped paint on struts, gear, tailbraces, tail-pull handles, and tailwheel horn
factory recommendation to tie the stick back and apply full flaps rather than installing gust locks at tiedown
These are common to all Huskies. Sure, all Cubs have issues. You could make a list of them and post them here, too. I said I like Huskys for what they are, and the above is a list of what I don't like about them.
What's scary is....
Much of the above list will have happened on a 20 hour new a/c delivery flight to Alaska from the lower 48.
Other than the mystery finish problems that the factory had for a couple of years, (the chipping paint is still an issue) the only major groan and maybe even scream I have is that these things leave the factory with an air duct laying on the #1 cylinder oil return line. The duct WILL WEAR THROUGH the return line. Matt, what's yours look like? How many hours? Seriously, I'm trying to help here. This is not paybacks for the lists of crashes from the "...vs. Cub..".
Old ones and brand new ones from the factory have most of the above maladies. Beware.
Dave.
PS, ready for the list on the 180/185 series???
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Rebel, 1175 is pretty respectable for a 180 Cub with, I'm assuming, plenty of trimmings.
Around 1000 pounds, or even just under, is doable on an -18 with extreme attention to the build process. 200 less than that is doable with a PA-11 and J-3. Now we're talking performance and lightweight...touching down with very little left-over energy to get stopped...and not having to accelerate and fly it (extra weight) for lift-off.
It's so easy to add weight a bit at a time and end up gaining 50 to 100 pounds that you wouldn't have thought of.
Most guys get all googley eyed at the shiny finishes, stack of radios, extra power jacks, extra,extra baggage and access doors, all the wing mods, cargo pod, etc.
Yes, some of this is needed, depending on the mission. But you know that a Cub with like, 3 gauges in the panel, a handheld radio and GPS, stock fuel system, dope finish, and no elec. is the sweetest, surest performer available.
It's not for everyone, just the guys who are getting in and out of extra rough, extra short LZ's. And that's not everyone who loves a Cub, Husky, Scout, Found, 185, Sherpa, RV-6, Beaver....IT's the lightweight Cub guy.
I'm sure you're very happy with 1175 empty. For what you're driving, it's not a bad number. And, in a new, turnkey a/c.!! There's something to be said for writing the check and hopping in. VS. scrounging or paying for parts and coming home with your head reeling and your clothes smelling like dope, welded 4130, hylomar, and epoxy primer.
Have fun.
Dave Calkins.
Around 1000 pounds, or even just under, is doable on an -18 with extreme attention to the build process. 200 less than that is doable with a PA-11 and J-3. Now we're talking performance and lightweight...touching down with very little left-over energy to get stopped...and not having to accelerate and fly it (extra weight) for lift-off.
It's so easy to add weight a bit at a time and end up gaining 50 to 100 pounds that you wouldn't have thought of.
Most guys get all googley eyed at the shiny finishes, stack of radios, extra power jacks, extra,extra baggage and access doors, all the wing mods, cargo pod, etc.
Yes, some of this is needed, depending on the mission. But you know that a Cub with like, 3 gauges in the panel, a handheld radio and GPS, stock fuel system, dope finish, and no elec. is the sweetest, surest performer available.
It's not for everyone, just the guys who are getting in and out of extra rough, extra short LZ's. And that's not everyone who loves a Cub, Husky, Scout, Found, 185, Sherpa, RV-6, Beaver....IT's the lightweight Cub guy.
I'm sure you're very happy with 1175 empty. For what you're driving, it's not a bad number. And, in a new, turnkey a/c.!! There's something to be said for writing the check and hopping in. VS. scrounging or paying for parts and coming home with your head reeling and your clothes smelling like dope, welded 4130, hylomar, and epoxy primer.
Have fun.
Dave Calkins.
flagold
Registered User
Abbeville, Alabama
Dave:
You're right, all of them have issues. I've got 200hrs on mine with no problems thusfar, except the hard to work under the cowl factor. Right on the list: I could post similar, but you guys already have them in the fix-up section of the site. My Top Cub, 901CC arrived with a runaway trim, and faulty voltage regulator and a prop problem. Jim Richmond personally delivered it that way. To his credit, he sent Stan down and had him fix all the kinks. So yes, all planes have their problems.
Sorry if I'm not as smooth in my delivery as some of the re-builders hyping their product here . . . Suspect many of you think every Husky sold is a SuperCub that isn't, and you won't get the re-build mark-up.
Johnny -- you're 20 pounds over my plane somewhere.
Tim,
Yeah, that's true. I liked that taildraggersderranged.com though. As for the money, I just sent one off to the Husky site and Steve will get one too.
I was here in large part because I still think of myself as a SuperCub pilot, probably have far more hours in them and certainly down on the deck flight than most of the guys here (certainly the chest-thumpers). You can get plenty of advice from my posts already as a pattern is emerging in them: want performace -- go stock, lightweight. Want it usable for hauling, camping, comfort: go with all the add-ons and you really don't sacrifice a lot in performance for what you get in practical use.
As for flying, have to disagree somewhat with both Mike and Olderboulder as I used a cross between the two. An angled approach with power, full flaps, use 55 or 60 if it was really heavy (for 2421S or 901CC), or gusty. On some approaches you can come down to the treeline without flaps at minimum speed, pull on flaps at the treeline, and it will simply autoland for you, but you guys using them seriously use an approach, speed, and tecnique appropriate to the approach (and airspeed indicator) at hand. I usually tell guys to stall the planes at multiple weights because the pitot tubes vary (and some are eratic) and speeds vary with tire size and other external variables on the plane in question.
All these planes are different and many have been re-built numerous times by questionable builders so be sure you're thoroughly familiar with your airframe before flying it to the max. When I had the logbooks, 4083Z had rebuilds in them from wrecks that weren't reflected on the NTSB rolls. When I bought 2421S it was as a no-damage plane, and when I posted that list of all the cub wrecks -- guess what -- it was in there. 901CC was sold to me as a new Top Cub and when I went to sell it, buyers all had the same question about the wings being from a used plane . . . (wonder where they all got that question from). Caveat Emptor!
But as for having hatred against any of you, CC, or the SuperCub, I certainly have none. I have none for the Richmonds, business is business and I had some great service from them, and some abominable, so it all evened out and I'm just flying the latest in a long line of great planes in my experience, the Husky, and the Cessna 180.
For all the chest-thumpers -- my exp:
C-150
C-172
C-180
C-182
PA-18 -150-160-180
Pawnee
400 Brave
600 Thrush
1200 Thrush
450 AgCat
Piper Warrior
Piper Tomahawk
Champion Scout
Champion Citabria
450 Stearman
65 Aeronca
65 J-3
M20E
C-310
Piper Apache Geronimo Conv.
Husky A1B
C-185
Ground & taxi procedures instructor:
L-1011
DC-10
A-300
B-757
I can tell that some here have much more than I do, and I'm still learning on every flight, and have learned quite a bit from some of you in your posts.
Apologize if I was overzealous about the Husky, it's like quitting smoking, so good, you just have to tell everyone! A Husky buyer really isn't interested in a SC as you can see from the Husky mailing list archives. The Husky buyer has in all probability owned a few SC's already, and simply wants the same type of flying, with more options in speed, range, comfort, avionics, safety, and strength. The overzealousness on this site seems to come from defensive re-builders, eager to market their product as the "Harley" of the sky (whatever that means -- in my day it meant an unreliable bucket of mismatched parts -- glad they've got better by having competition).
You guys take care, and I'll make a pot of coffee for you, just re-heat it whenever you arrive . . .
Matt Mattson
http://www.treasuresites.com
You're right, all of them have issues. I've got 200hrs on mine with no problems thusfar, except the hard to work under the cowl factor. Right on the list: I could post similar, but you guys already have them in the fix-up section of the site. My Top Cub, 901CC arrived with a runaway trim, and faulty voltage regulator and a prop problem. Jim Richmond personally delivered it that way. To his credit, he sent Stan down and had him fix all the kinks. So yes, all planes have their problems.
Sorry if I'm not as smooth in my delivery as some of the re-builders hyping their product here . . . Suspect many of you think every Husky sold is a SuperCub that isn't, and you won't get the re-build mark-up.
Johnny -- you're 20 pounds over my plane somewhere.
Tim,
Yeah, that's true. I liked that taildraggersderranged.com though. As for the money, I just sent one off to the Husky site and Steve will get one too.
I was here in large part because I still think of myself as a SuperCub pilot, probably have far more hours in them and certainly down on the deck flight than most of the guys here (certainly the chest-thumpers). You can get plenty of advice from my posts already as a pattern is emerging in them: want performace -- go stock, lightweight. Want it usable for hauling, camping, comfort: go with all the add-ons and you really don't sacrifice a lot in performance for what you get in practical use.
As for flying, have to disagree somewhat with both Mike and Olderboulder as I used a cross between the two. An angled approach with power, full flaps, use 55 or 60 if it was really heavy (for 2421S or 901CC), or gusty. On some approaches you can come down to the treeline without flaps at minimum speed, pull on flaps at the treeline, and it will simply autoland for you, but you guys using them seriously use an approach, speed, and tecnique appropriate to the approach (and airspeed indicator) at hand. I usually tell guys to stall the planes at multiple weights because the pitot tubes vary (and some are eratic) and speeds vary with tire size and other external variables on the plane in question.
All these planes are different and many have been re-built numerous times by questionable builders so be sure you're thoroughly familiar with your airframe before flying it to the max. When I had the logbooks, 4083Z had rebuilds in them from wrecks that weren't reflected on the NTSB rolls. When I bought 2421S it was as a no-damage plane, and when I posted that list of all the cub wrecks -- guess what -- it was in there. 901CC was sold to me as a new Top Cub and when I went to sell it, buyers all had the same question about the wings being from a used plane . . . (wonder where they all got that question from). Caveat Emptor!
But as for having hatred against any of you, CC, or the SuperCub, I certainly have none. I have none for the Richmonds, business is business and I had some great service from them, and some abominable, so it all evened out and I'm just flying the latest in a long line of great planes in my experience, the Husky, and the Cessna 180.
For all the chest-thumpers -- my exp:
C-150
C-172
C-180
C-182
PA-18 -150-160-180
Pawnee
400 Brave
600 Thrush
1200 Thrush
450 AgCat
Piper Warrior
Piper Tomahawk
Champion Scout
Champion Citabria
450 Stearman
65 Aeronca
65 J-3
M20E
C-310
Piper Apache Geronimo Conv.
Husky A1B
C-185
Ground & taxi procedures instructor:
L-1011
DC-10
A-300
B-757
I can tell that some here have much more than I do, and I'm still learning on every flight, and have learned quite a bit from some of you in your posts.
Apologize if I was overzealous about the Husky, it's like quitting smoking, so good, you just have to tell everyone! A Husky buyer really isn't interested in a SC as you can see from the Husky mailing list archives. The Husky buyer has in all probability owned a few SC's already, and simply wants the same type of flying, with more options in speed, range, comfort, avionics, safety, and strength. The overzealousness on this site seems to come from defensive re-builders, eager to market their product as the "Harley" of the sky (whatever that means -- in my day it meant an unreliable bucket of mismatched parts -- glad they've got better by having competition).
You guys take care, and I'll make a pot of coffee for you, just re-heat it whenever you arrive . . .
Matt Mattson
http://www.treasuresites.com
RedBaron
Registered User
All Over, Alaska
Rebel,
Have you actually weighed your Top Cub? I doubt very much it is only 1175, I talked with Nathan at the Tradeshow a couple years ago, wondering why they advertised and empty weight of 1125 when it clearly was much heavier. I was given a more realistic number of about 1250 or so. No way is it 1175. Heavier gear (CubCrafter's gear) heavier paint, full panel, etc.
Andy
Have you actually weighed your Top Cub? I doubt very much it is only 1175, I talked with Nathan at the Tradeshow a couple years ago, wondering why they advertised and empty weight of 1125 when it clearly was much heavier. I was given a more realistic number of about 1250 or so. No way is it 1175. Heavier gear (CubCrafter's gear) heavier paint, full panel, etc.
Andy
S
StewartB
Hell, if money wasn't an issue, I'd have a Bell Tiltrotor. I'd park it next to my G-V. Oh, I'm sorry, what was the question?
SB
SB
PA12driver
Registered User
Battle Ground, WA
Flagold,
I must thank you for your last post. I thought it to be well thought out! (much better then many of mine) I think now we all pretty much have had our say and it is all fact (according to my wisdom weilding guru of data gathering, light cub officianato "Jerry Burr" (that is cause we took it upon ourselves to write down our "opinions".
Now we can all get back to the fun stuff!
Rebel, I have to say that most cubs that fly in the bush (park in town) average around 1160lb with strictly VFR panels. I have only personally weighed (1) CC TC and it was a "rebuild" with new wings, and fuselage from the splice back and all mods added. It weighed Empty on 3" ext gear and 29" (old bushwhees) 1241 lbs.
My 1964 cub N6344Z weighed 1138lbs with, with a handheld, and no vacumn, 3" gear and 26" All purpose tires,
My 1978 N82555 weighed 1158 with 3" gear, 29" tires, geared starter, extended flat floor baggage and a landes belly tank? (go figure).
My current PA12 calulated from the (rebuild original weight) of 1104 to 1156? I plan on weighing it in a couple of weeks, soon as it warms up so I can strip off the duct tape and patch the fabric? I expect it is actually aobut 1165? (I am selling raffle tickets??)
I am sure others would like to know what some other cubs weigh, perhaps we could come up with a form (SJ?) kinda fill in the blanks for the equipment list?
Tim
I must thank you for your last post. I thought it to be well thought out! (much better then many of mine) I think now we all pretty much have had our say and it is all fact (according to my wisdom weilding guru of data gathering, light cub officianato "Jerry Burr" (that is cause we took it upon ourselves to write down our "opinions".
Now we can all get back to the fun stuff!
Rebel, I have to say that most cubs that fly in the bush (park in town) average around 1160lb with strictly VFR panels. I have only personally weighed (1) CC TC and it was a "rebuild" with new wings, and fuselage from the splice back and all mods added. It weighed Empty on 3" ext gear and 29" (old bushwhees) 1241 lbs.
My 1964 cub N6344Z weighed 1138lbs with, with a handheld, and no vacumn, 3" gear and 26" All purpose tires,
My 1978 N82555 weighed 1158 with 3" gear, 29" tires, geared starter, extended flat floor baggage and a landes belly tank? (go figure).
My current PA12 calulated from the (rebuild original weight) of 1104 to 1156? I plan on weighing it in a couple of weeks, soon as it warms up so I can strip off the duct tape and patch the fabric? I expect it is actually aobut 1165? (I am selling raffle tickets??)
I am sure others would like to know what some other cubs weigh, perhaps we could come up with a form (SJ?) kinda fill in the blanks for the equipment list?
Tim
supercub
MEMBER
Let me check my GPS, gee how'd we ever navigate w
Empty weight isn't important. What's important is how much does that thing weigh with fuel, oil, and that big piece of baggage occupying the front seat. I point this out as an incentive to all us slightly over gross weight drivers. One more thing, what's with all this about a Husky being faster, big deal, stop and think about all the other makes and models of airplanes that are faster then a Husky and a Super Cub. If I want to go fast, I'll go jump in my car, I don't divert to go look at things near as much in it. I've done enough flying over the years to get someone there fast. I fly my cub for fun. Time to spare, go by air.
Brian
Brian
djfraudman
Registered User
Meadow Lakes, AK
Rebel Cub, if you recently purchased your airplane and the weight and balance says it weighs 1175# then it does, don't waste your money having it re-weighted. I seriously doubt that CC gave you an incorrect weight and balance.
