• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

180, 160, 150?

Yellsback

Yellsback

Registered User
Sheridan, WY
I'm looking at buying a Super Cub, and would appreciate some advice, since I'm not too familiar with the different HP models. I run out of strips ranging from 4,500 to 7,000 MSL, both gravel, grass, and asphalt. Primarily, I'd be towing both banners and gliders out of a 4,720 MSL asphalt strip, and someday would like to put straight floats on her. Do I need/want a 180 HP, or are they overated, and a 150 or 160 horse would do the job? I've also heard rumors that the 180's have trouble with the tail feathers being over stressed during the years of having such a hot engine - I thought it was a bunch of crap, but perhaps not? Thanks in advance!

K. Flynn
 
The 180 hp's are over rated in many ways. They burn more fuel so you have to haul more. They weigh more. They is no STC to put a Borer prop on them. They shake the hell out of the plane, to the point of structural damage. Except for extremely heavy load conditions, a strong 150hp or 160hp will usually outperform them in terms of short take offs and landings.

They do shine as a float plane but for a bush plane, I'd take a 150 or 160 every time. They also have a better climb rate if that is important to you. I'm no expert at high elevation operations but they might have some advantage there.

Before anybody gets all cranked up, I will say these are just my personal thoughts and observations.
 
Well I'll take the heat off ya' Cubdrvr . . .

I've owned all 3, and it's just hard to beat a stock 150 or 160 SC. I personally like the 150 because it seems to drink almost anything just fine, short of tractor-fuel, but the 160 makes a fine bird too.

If you go to 180, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to get something designed for it from the get-go (Maule, Scout, Husky) and get the power and economy of the constant speed prop.

A Scout is a good banner-hauler.

Well I can hear the bolt actions clicking now . . .

flagold
 
Horsepower

I will take a lot of flack for this . . .

If money is no object, there is no question that the 180HP is better for your application. But you will spend more for a 180 than a 150. 180 conversions done right typically bring 20-30K more than a similarly equipped 150.

A 150 or 160 might win the short landing competition because it could theoretically be 25lbs lighter, but the 180 will beat it of the ground and definatly out-climb the 150 or 160. By the same argument a 90HP is even better still . . .

Super Cubs can be made to fly with even a 90HP engine . . . the question of fuel burn is more a question of how fast you fly than it is your HP. A 150, 160, and 180 will all run out of fuel at the same time if they are on a trip together flying the same speed. The 160 and 180 actually seem to last a little longer on the same tank (I think because they are higher compression) but it is almost not enough to mention.

Cub Crafters has not had trouble with the high HP affecting the tail negativly, but we are keeping a close eye on the situation as other (husky) aircraft have had trouble with the 180 and tailfeathers.

The weight difference between similarly equipped airpalnes, (the only difference being the 180HP engine with the Cub Crafters STC) one with the 180 and one with the 150/160 and both airplanes with 82/41 pitch props is only 25lbs. and both airplanes are lighter than a stock 150 from the Piper factory.

Most of the airplanes that I hear of towing banners are not what you would consider cream-puff airplanes. . . many have 10,000 plus hours. That may have more to do with the tail fatigue than the HP only.

Now all that being said, there are some poorly done 180 conversions out there. You need to look at more than just the HP . . .
 
Hi Nathan,

Myself and a lot of people I talk to are seriously interested in the difference in performance between the 150/160 vs the 180hp. Especially in the landing configuration. I have done a search on this site looking for the answers and all I can find is that the 180 seems to land faster---needs to carry more power---and feels heavier. Now 25lbs has never really made that much difference in cub performance. With all the testing you say you have done, I was wondering if you could post some solid numbers relative to similar a/c, with different hp relative to landing performance. I assume you would have this information as 20-30k difference in price is enough to need a firm grasp of performance. Good or bad I am sure there is quite an interest here. I understand this might be a hard question. Thanks. Also are there any problems with fwd cg on floats with the 180.
 
I flew a 180 cub a few weeks ago and it didnt seam any nose heavier than my 160 cub. Even with hard braking the tail didnt appear to come up any faster. Conical mount 0360C4P, 82 in prop, really smooth, just as smooth as a borer prop on a 160.
 
In a banner towing scenario under conditions that lend themselves to high density altitudes, my personal preference would be for the 180 as it would offer a greater margin of safety, especially during pick-ups. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of engines for banner towing you might want to speak with Barry Brock, who operated a fleet of PA-12s and PA-18s towing banners at Myrtle Beach. You can reach him at 843-527-7516 or email him at sevenrivers.aviation@verizon.net.

In other applications, such as load hauling, the 180 will be superior for getting large loads into the air quicker. It will not increase the cruise speed much, as the limiting factor is the plane's drag.

Another consideration is engine speed at max rated horsepower. My O-320 is rated at 160 hp at 2700 RPM. Frankly, flying at 2700 rpm for long is a pain in the fanny. It's too noisy and burns gas like crazy (look at the fuel burn graph from Lycoming). I prefer to cruise at 2450 RPM: this sacrifices speed, but is much less fatiguing and much easier on the fuel burn (average 7.2 gph on cross countries).
 
The 180 hp "really" only shines ahead of the 160 at altitude with a load! Anything else is sales talk! Like Nathan said "if money were not the object" Money is the object, If you are towing banners, or flying hunters, or air taxi, "money is the object". Landing performance is more the rigging, loading and pilot proficiency then the airplane/hp/weight (assuming we are talking within 25-50 lbs of each other.

I just yesterday "re-rigged" my PA12/160 and it is a "different airplane". And before anyone can get worried, ( still have more wash-out in it then a PA18 relative to the angle of incidence. There is other differences in airplane performance other then engineering data, like each plane is put together "by hand" and each is different? One cub flys heavy, one light? I am sure Jim or Nathan, would agree that not all of their TC's fly the same even though they have the same mods??

Bottom line, Towing, packing, a load, operating at HDA, more HP/Trust,

(Murph, you still got that little diesel burner in the shed?)

Tim
 
Money is the object, If you are towing banners, or flying hunters, or air taxi, "money is the object". -- which takes us right back to that stock 150 burning anything short of tractor fuel. MM
 
I'm new here, and don't know much, but thought I'd
throw in mine. Can we guestimate how much
more weight the wing of a 180 cub is actually supporting
when you consider _where_ you're adding those 25lbs?
When you figure in the extra few pounds of downforce
on the tail to hold that bigger engine up, and a little extra
induced drag from both the tail and the wing, that extra
"20 horsepower" worth of performance gets whittled
down a bit.

--Zooey
 
Zooy,

My comments were for a guy trying to make money primarily, and have a little fun once in awhile which is why I suggested the 150 or 160. That said, we can go through all kinds of pencil and paper hystrionics to prove that the 180 hp doesn't mean much. But that's just not true. The power you get from hanging a 180 on the front is all out of proportion to what an extra 30 hp would seem on paper to give. Fully loaded it'll climb out at 1500 fpm, and with just the pilot and some gas, it's not uncommon to see 1800-2000 at SL depending on the gas load and temp. That's the good. Now the bad. No matter what the builder wants to hawk, without a constant speed prop it's a pig on gas, as witnessed how many of them have extended fuel, belly tanks, etc. The SC is already fuel inefficient, and a 180 makes it even more so.

Below 5000 the 150 and 160 have the power needed to do the job effectively and efficiently as designed. They won't do the job spectacularly, they'll just do the job day in and out, as they've been doing for 50 years.

If you want spectacular, well, you have to get a Husky for that . . . :agrue:

MM
 
Shoot out!

The tower here at YKM will allow two Cubs onto the runway as a flight, and if the right person is up there, will say go. First one off wins the first catagory. We race to 200 feet for the climb portion. Slow fly down wind and land short. We do this three times, and the winner gets the free lunch. If needed we can swap planes to make sure it is not all technique. The density alltitude is the same on both sides of the runway, so I believe this to be a valid comparison. Our tower allows us alot of slack, with abbreviated patterns, and a figure eight pattern that allows about fifty touch goes in a hour, cause we never get over 100 feet AGL. Would like to invite everyone to YKM to tour the plants, and participate in the shoot out.
 
Say, Mike, Thanks for the invite, I will have to come up and enjoy that? Is there any grass to land on? I hate pavement, hard on my Tundra tires!

Say hi to Jim and Nathan and Stan!
PS: I hear Stan bought back his ol Bushmaster?

Tim
 
HEY Tim if you go over there and dont come over here and see us I might get my feelers hurt! :cry:

Wup
 
Wup, I will be over soon, I don't want to hurt your feelings!! Just sounds like them tower guys in Yakima are pretty cool dudes and dudettes! figure 8 patterns I can dig that! (I may be over to Joseph first-giving them Apple country boys time to dig up some of that asphalt!

Thanks for the invite Wup!
Tim
 
I will Wup, just don't be thinking I ain't working, I just be working in the evenings after I can't see to land de cub no mur!

I had nearly 35 years of that up at o-dark 30 and grind till dark! Now it is time to play a lot and work smart and as little as possible to make it happen!

Tim
 
Engine weight

I got a Lycoming factory data pak from VanBortal when they quoted an engine. Lycoming says the O-320 150hp engine weighs 244lbs the O-320 160hp weighs 255lbs and a O-360 A4P weighs 265lbs. The reason the 160hp is 11 pounds heavier then a 150 is it has solid wrist pins instead of hollow and the pistons are taller for higher compression. As a matter of fact the pistons in a O-320 B2B are the same part number as a O-360 with 8.50:1 compression ratio, the stroke on the O-360 is just 5/8 inch longer, picking up 40 cubic inches of displacement.

That said, on disassembly of my factory built '77 PA-18 I removed 36lbs of junk forward of the panel that won't go back on. The O-360 is ten pounds heavier then the O-320 160hp I took off. The dynafocal mount is 7lbs heavier then the conical mount, so the total gained back is 17lbs but that is still 19lbs lighter then before and my cub had a light weight starter. I think it will fly just fine. I will give a pilot report as soon as I can get it de bugged and wring it out a bit. If it stinks I'm not to proud to admit it and go back to a 160. Take care. Crash
 
Crash, Who's dyno mount are you useing? You are shoe-horning the whole thing under the stock cowl with a few minor tweeks right? Other than the engine/prop itself, are there any other expensive parts you need to change other than the mount?
 
Yellsback,
My 12 project was originally slated for 180hp. I'm now going with 160hp. The performance difference IN MY CASE didn't justify the $18K price difference. At 7000' on a hot day, my decision would have been different. On floats I'd have gone with the 180hp. That's really what changed for my 12, which was going to be a float plane but is now going to stay on 31's. Last year I was hunting with some friends in 2 cubs, on tires. One 160hp/no electric, one 180hp/electric. Obviously one was lighter. Loaded to the hilt, at essentially the same weight, the take-off and landing runs were close enough in length to not matter. The rate of climb was hugely different. Getting off wasn't the problem, but getting over that next ridge was. On floats, the 180hp will jump on step and out of the water faster every time....light OR heavy. You'll just need to balance your mission with your budget.
SB
 
I'm looking into different engine possibilities, since my ND is trashed. Do you really have a A4P Crash?, I hope you miss typed. That data pak from Lyc is very general for engine series weights. While a 320-A2B does weigh 244#, a 320-B2B actually only weighs 250#. And a dyno mount 360-A4P actually weighs a whopping 295#...So if you really do have a A4P, you are adding 45# + heavier mount and prop...ouch. The conical mount 360-C4P weighs 275#.

I've built up some 360-(4)'s, and those solid cranks are heavy. I'm thinking about a 360-A1/C1, hollow crank, should be able to get this motor Cub ready at about 256#. I need 180 hp like I need a hole in the head, since I will stay nonelectric. But the thought of what the plane would do with the 180 if I can keep it down around 1000# empty makes me start to twitch...
 
AkPA/18 said:
Hi Nathan,

Myself and a lot of people I talk to are seriously interested in the difference in performance between the 150/160 vs the 180hp. Especially in the landing configuration. I have done a search on this site looking for the answers and all I can find is that the 180 seems to land faster---needs to carry more power---and feels heavier. Now 25lbs has never really made that much difference in cub performance. With all the testing you say you have done, I was wondering if you could post some solid numbers relative to similar a/c, with different hp relative to landing performance. I assume you would have this information as 20-30k difference in price is enough to need a firm grasp of performance. Good or bad I am sure there is quite an interest here. I understand this might be a hard question. Thanks. Also are there any problems with fwd cg on floats with the 180.
Click to expand...
[q My 180 top cub produced by cub crafters will land shorter, fly slower ,haul more , take off shorter ,climb faster,handle better than any 150 or 160 period. Example 0 wind half fuel 2 people land or take off less than 100 feet ,60 degrees 1100 foot elevation.[/b][/quote]
 
I have a 180 SC. The same airplane before rebuilding had 150 HP. My flying is 95% bushflying in AK. Landing is almost no difference under identical conditions. But on take off it shines. On smooth soft gravel I count under 300´ with grosswheigt (even if it is a "bit" heavier). but normal it is airborn within 220ft without pressing. With 1550-1600lbs last summer I was regular in the air within 140-150ft. But because of the different conditions in bushflying (temperatur, surface, moist, gust etc.) I wuold not count on it to be safe.
Climbespeed is around 1200ft/min with grosswheigt (+ a"bit" more) untill
4-5000ft. I climbe to 9000ft within 10 min (to get on top over the Range).
My max climbspeed was a bit less than 1700 ft/min .
I have a lot of instrument"junk" in front. So I can read what my fuelcon-sumption is. I cruise 115mls/hr with 9.5-10 gls/hr peak lean 4000ftMSL.
With 85-90 mls/hr I burn 5.2-5.6 gls/hr. With my A.Dodge big tanks I have a range of 900mls+ in still air. I feel very good when I fly north in to the Brooks and fool around there.
I have the Dynafocalmount so I do not feel much of vibration in the fuselage. My Engine is internaly ballanced, so that might be the reason for turbinelike smoothness, my propballancingman said.
CG is 1/2"-1" behind front CG empty with pilot and 61 gls fuel. So I need a 20 lbs toolbox in the very rear of my upper baggagecompartment not to fall on my snout when I step strong on my brakes. But anyway I cary a good survivalgear in my SC, which wheighs quite a bit. I can dump a lot of freight in the back without beeing to afraid about my CG. That is the nice thing beeing nosehaevy. I am realy happy with my "Dreamcub"
:D
 
Heege, What prop/pitch are you running? 85-90 burning 5.2-5.6, or 115 at 9.5-10 doesn't sound to bad. I would assume you are running big tires at those speeds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M1
performance comparison 150 / 160 / 180 hp
2
Replies
32
Views
17K
CptKelly
C
T
pacers
Replies
13
Views
7K
5381Z
5
O
Cruise performance
2
Replies
34
Views
24K
bob turner
B
A
pa-14 engine 150 or 180
Replies
15
Views
8K
N5126H
N5126H
H
hey wise banner dudes advice please - letters or billboards?
Replies
0
Views
2K
hikouka
H
Back
Top