PDA

View Full Version : All metal supercub



sped1111
01-28-2006, 09:35 AM
Just curious, are there any homebuild versions of the supercub that is all metal. I'm sure I'm raising some eyebrows but I'm not a big fan of fabric.

Cub junkie
01-28-2006, 03:51 PM
An all metal Super Cub would be pathetic.

Flying Miss Daisy
01-28-2006, 03:56 PM
I think they call it the C180... it is faster wider and holds two extra non payers in the back. Some people even think it looks like a cessna.

harneymaki
01-28-2006, 04:03 PM
Tom Foolery, if you ask me. It's like the Met-co Air conversion that several Stinson 108's have. Turns a good plane in to a rattle trap. But that is just my opinion.

180Marty
01-28-2006, 08:22 PM
There was a metalized PA 12 at Oshkosh 2 yrs. ago. I think it even made Sport Aviation Fuselage was skinned with .020 or maybe thinner aluminum.
Marty

Hyrdflyr
01-29-2006, 02:17 PM
The 12 I am rebuilding as an experimental had a Metcoaire fuselage. It was doggy but that was due to lack of power and wing incidence problems that had a full one inch difference between angle of attacks as a result of some butchered wreck repairs. The metallization sure didn't weigh much.

The best feature was that the metal is held off the tubing by clamps and standoffs and when allowed to sit out, all of the moisture drained down the aluminum belly and did not get trapped up against the tubes as can happen with fabric: consequently none of my longeron tubing was rusted.

It only took about twenty minutes to remove, so I sure wouldn't let it effect my decision to rebuild a 12 that had been metalized.

It was originally done with nice workmanship, but had been cosmetically beatup over the years, and I needed access to the tubing for mods and refinishing, so off it went.

jay cross
01-31-2006, 10:32 PM
Metco air had a metalized fuselage kit for 12s and stinsons. The 12 I flew had the metal fuselage in good shape. The books showed it was 4 pounds lighter with the metal on. It flew nice, I flew it for 26 hours on floats during hunting season. There are still a few of them around. If I had one I would keep it metal.

Scruffdog
02-01-2006, 08:24 AM
A Supercub is a tube and FABRIC airplane. The metal parts are on there just for looks!

Bill Rusk
02-01-2006, 09:50 AM
This is his first post and we kinda hammered him. Quite possibly an honest question. Welcome to supercub.org Sped1111. It truly is a great site and one of the things that makes it great is that folks will give you an honest opinion, not some sugar coated, advertising type, answer. It can feel a little intimidating at times but the amount of knowledge and diversity of opinion is truly spectacular.
Fabric has its merits, one of which is you can pull it off every 20 or so years and completely check the structure. You can't do that to a metal airframe, so it can be difficult to spot corrosion. Do you recall the recent Chocks mishap? They had pros looking for corrosion and they could not see, or find it, till it was too late. While metal has its advantages and no one would tell you that the Cessna line was junk don't discount fabric to quickly. Just one thing to consider. I do think most would agree that if you prefer metal you are probably better off with a metal designed aircraft rather that one that has been converted. Problem is there is just not a metal airplane that will do what a cub will, or flies quite like a cub.

Don't get scared off, we really do welcome new folks and new ideas.

Bill

Dan2+2
02-01-2006, 11:06 AM
Cubclub has a few articles on metal 12,s. Also a J3 covered in clear mylar. Easy to see corrosion but kinda strange looking. Not to mention questionable strength.

6 short
02-01-2006, 03:59 PM
Good post, Bill Rusk, and welcome Sped1111. I agree that a conversion is not the best choice given the number of metal (and composite) aircraft designs out there.

Pat

CubDriver218
11-02-2010, 05:54 PM
I was just wondering about this and came across this post. I noticed the last post wasn't since 2006 so is there any new enlightening information on the subject? Metal doesn't weigh more than the fabric and it'd be nice to be able put a little pressure on the plane while pushing, pulling and tugging to get the plane in and out.
Just thought it'd be interesting to see pics or hear of anyone who had done it.

kevin
11-02-2010, 06:23 PM
I have a friend of mine in CA who has a metalized fuselage -12. He likes it.

Darrel Starr
11-02-2010, 07:16 PM
Not a problem -- I took these pictures in Fairbanks in June 2005.
http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data/510/medium/P6230011.JPG
http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data/510/medium/P6230013.JPG
http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data/510/medium/P6230012.JPG
http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data/510/medium/P6230014.JPG

mit greb
11-02-2010, 07:48 PM
That plane is still in Fairbanks.

60below
11-02-2010, 07:56 PM
There is also a Pacer at FAI that is ALL metalized. That's all I know about it except that it was for sale not long ago. (I think)

qsmx440
11-02-2010, 08:05 PM
If a person was really going to metalize a cub wouldn't it be smart to re design it as a monocoque fuse rather than having both steel tubes and aluminum cover? Is aluminum really lighter than fabric cover?? That seems far fetched . Is it? dave

Steve Pierce
11-03-2010, 05:48 AM
Most were done back in the 50-60s when most airplanes were covered in cotton, sat outside and had to be recovered every 5 years.

Dave Calkins
11-03-2010, 10:02 AM
Sorry to single out Richard D.

Pushing, bumping, etc. on that metal will deform it permanently. Fabric will simply spring back to place if bumped.

Also, I don't understand how the metalized a/c weigh "less" than the fabric ones. Somethin' fishy in that statement. Something else was done at the 'rebuild', etc.

Plus, that's the ugliest -18 I've ever seen in that photo.

There's a metalized Tri-Pacer at Lake Hood for sale right now. IT's not much uglier than a fabric Tri-Pacer.

Sorry Richard! :D

Steve Pierce
11-03-2010, 11:35 AM
Only advantage I have seen is there are stand-offs that keep the aluminum skin off the tubing so everything breaths and is less prone to trapping dirt and water and corroding the tubing. Fabric is way lighter. I used to know the weight difference on a Short Wing.

Tiger cub
11-03-2010, 12:03 PM
I think they call it a CH701 by zenith aircraft.

CubDriver218
11-03-2010, 01:34 PM
Sorry to single out Richard D.

Pushing, bumping, etc. on that metal will deform it permanently. Fabric will simply spring back to place if bumped.

Also, I don't understand how the metalized a/c weigh "less" than the fabric ones. Somethin' fishy in that statement. Something else was done at the 'rebuild', etc.

Sorry Richard! :D

You don't have to be sorry. I can take it, plus I'd rather get honest opinions than a sugar coated version. I do agree it is ugly and there is validity to the fabric springing back. I only said the metal version weighs less from info given in an earlier post. I wouldn't suspect if done right it would weigh less, however I wouldn't expect it to be much more. The only real problem I see with fabric is it needs to be re-done every 10-20 years and it's an expensive and timely process. The pros are that you get to inspect everything and fix problems you otherwise may not have known existed.

Steve Pierce
11-03-2010, 01:40 PM
Yea, like this upper longeron under a fabric headliner where a bird had built a nest at one time.

http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data/760/medium/100_7857.JPG

AntiCub
11-03-2010, 01:58 PM
I think they call it a CH701 by zenith aircraft.

That was my first thought too. At what point is it no longer a cub, but just a similar performing aircraft? :wink:

CubDriver218
11-03-2010, 02:10 PM
Yea, like this upper longeron under a fabric headliner where a bird had built a nest at one time.

Pictures like that make me uneasy since I've never actually seen my airframe, plus I heard the outside can look great but sill have corrosion on the inside. Yikes!

behindpropellers
11-03-2010, 02:52 PM
Yea, like this upper longeron under a fabric headliner where a bird had built a nest at one time.

Pictures like that make me uneasy since I've never actually seen my airframe, plus I heard the outside can look great but sill have corrosion on the inside. Yikes!

Ehhhh They all look like that :o It why you have 4 longerons.... :D

mike mcs repair
11-03-2010, 04:00 PM
Yea, like this upper longeron under a fabric headliner where a bird had built a nest at one time.

http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data/760/medium/100_7857.JPG

years ago I jacked the tail of my stepfathers pacer up, and notice the fabric was wrinking some, well.. a longeron broke right by tail wire attach... got fabric off and tube looked like swiss cheese against/under the fabric....

quite a happy way to find it.. in the shop, not out in the boonies....

Hardtailjohn
11-03-2010, 04:10 PM
One of the reasons that the "data" states that the metalized airplanes weigh less than a fabric covered plane is that you were dealing with a dope and cotton job, which could be (and almost always are) very very heavy, especially when compared to the modern polyester fabric covering systems that are in use now. I've many times pulled cotton/dope off a cub that most certainly weighed way more than the comparable amount of aluminum would.
In the days of a 5 year cover job life, I can see the appeal of going to metal...but not any more!
John

cub12
11-03-2010, 04:20 PM
maybe if you don't want fabric something like glassairs 2+2 would be in line. i have not flowen one yet but i hear they are pretty good(but not a cub)

Steve's Aircraft (Brian)
11-03-2010, 05:51 PM
Yea, like this upper longeron under a fabric headliner where a bird had built a nest at one time.

http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data/760/medium/100_7857.JPG

The tail end of our Cub looked a lot like that when we did the fabric.

Here is another take on the "cost of a fabric job vs longevity of metal"
Sooner or later that "paint job" on your metal airplane is going to need to be re done to make it nice again. The cost of a paint job on a metal airplane is going for 8 to 10 Plus grand nowadays. Rip the fabric off and replace cost near the same as a strip and paint as long as you are just replacing the fabric and not doing anything else to the aircraft. Of course you never just take off and replace the fabric without doing something else...;-)

Brian.

pittsdriver
11-04-2010, 08:28 AM
I think you would find that a good commercial fabric and paint would be around $20-30,000.

Steve's Aircraft (Brian)
11-04-2010, 04:44 PM
Last complete recover I did on a customer PA-18, including new interior and several mods was 21K. That was with assembling new wings, flaps, ailerons, scrach building the interior out of Kydex, extended baggage mod, new radios and all wireing. Not to mention all of the custom pieces. I figure for just the fabric and paint alone not including the mods ran right around 12K ( this was with PolyFiber painted with Polytone )

My shop rate is $40.00 hr.

Brian.

lancef53
11-05-2010, 05:42 AM
$40 per hour--that is crazy!! lots of places around here are double that, and don't want to see any fabric.

Steve's Aircraft (Steve)
11-05-2010, 08:02 AM
You are right, most shops are more than that, but with the current economy, we are not raising rates yet. In our area the customer base would go away, as the shops in town have found out, to the point of closure. Currently, we are still eating and the grandkids have shoes.

A good commercial job does not necessarily have to relate to high prices.

Steve

pittsdriver
11-05-2010, 09:17 AM
Steve, I have seen your work on Jerry Jaques airplanes. Nice work for commercial job and your rates are certainly very reasonable. I have seen some really bad fabric work out there. Don