• 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!

SC vs. 7GCBC ?

Kase, turbobeaver, keep it going!
I still have half a bucket of popcorn & a 2 liter bottle of Pepsi!!
This is both informative & entertaining......:cheers
CH
 
What you boys need to do is go fly a pacer to see what a real plane will do. Put on some small tires, and the right prop it is FAST!! Keep it light and you can carry over 800 lbs (fly family of 4 for 30 grand). Want IFR, dash has all the room for it. Floats, stick a door on both sides and a 180 on it, Want bush plane do a producer or bushmaster mod with PA14 wings, cub gear, 180hp, and Borer prop. Now you have a plane that does 2 guys, camp, moose, and everything fits inside (wider than a PA12 or 14). Go look at the Valdez tapes a few years back and see just how short a producer can land!!! All pilots respect pacer drivers and women want to have your children!
To the original poster go buy a plane and fly if you don't like it sell it and get the other one. But be careful if you ever fly the mighty pacer she will take part of you soul and never give it back!!
DENNY
 
��
pretty balsy thing to say here.....even for you..

kindof equal to laughing at a surfer carrying a pipeline gun as he walks up the beach at pipe.......while you tell your group of bro's that you'd rather own a log.....or even a performance longboard..

really...there is no comparison between the two (cub/scout) when it comes to the roughest, toughest, shortest work.

....and a pipeline board does pipe better and safer and smoother and smarter than anything else.....dont even talk about bodyboarders....i have been there........................we could compare supercubs to something like powered parachutes and the analogy would be complete.

thats my opinion..and....I like it.
......and I like Kases also.

No disrespect intended. Not meant to give anyone an adrenaline rush! If it did my apologies.

Fully agree Dave. The statement was intended to say that everyone here has a different mission in life and one size does NOT fit what everyone might want to do. Not intended to encroach anyone having great results with a Cub. The topic was about 7GCBC vs SC. A question. The thread drifted to include 8GCBCs. So I felt I should express my results so far with ACA.

I personally respect (and sometimes envy) several folks on this forum who fly/build Cubs. I basically learned how to fly "beginner" bush operations from the advice received here at supercub.org . One day if my mission changes the Cub would be a great airplane to considered, envy and fly.

Was a grateful member of supercub.org long before the Scout. Still learning....
 
My first car was a 66 Mustang 289 convertable. I had 2 68 camaros, a 327 RS and a 302 Z28. Damn I miss those Camaros.

Excellent thread creep Glenn. I was always in awe of the mighty Z28s, there were a lot of them around and I lusted after them even though I was a mustang sort of guy. This is me in 1978 at age 17:
Untitled1.jpg
Glenn
I had just got my private that summer and flew the guts out of my Dads cub. In fact the pix had the three elements most important to me at the time, a Super Cub I just had to put gas in, my 69 Mustang coupe, and a smokin hot girlfriend who took the picture. Her legs were as tall as I was and she came equipped with all the desirable options necessary for 17 year old boys, most of the time generous with her gifts. I sure didnt know how good I had it. I still have the Mustang, would give up body parts to have the cub back I learned to fly in, I see the girl every now and then and father time hasnt been her friend. Must be why I am happy with my Scout:lol: and the next girl who has hung around for 32 years

Now lets see a pix of your 2 Zekes

Jim
 

Attachments

  • Untitled1.jpg
    Untitled1.jpg
    144.6 KB · Views: 175
I had just got my private that summer and flew the guts out of my Dads cub. In fact the pix had the three elements most important to me at the time, a Super Cub I just had to put gas in, my 69 Mustang coupe, and a smokin hot girlfriend who took the picture. Her legs were as tall as I was and she came equipped with all the desirable options necessary for 17 year old boys, most of the time generous with her gifts. I sure didnt know how good I had it. I still have the Mustang, would give up body parts to have the cub back I learned to fly in, I see the girl every now and then and father time hasnt been her friend. Must be why I am happy with my Scout:lol: and the next girl who has hung around for 32 years

Now lets see a pix of your 2 Zekes

Jim

Screw the Z.........s. please post pix of girlfriend with limited edition high performance options?

Glenn
 
I had just got my private that summer and flew the guts out of my Dads cub. In fact the pix had the three elements most important to me at the time, a Super Cub I just had to put gas in, my 69 Mustang coupe, and a smokin hot girlfriend who took the picture. Her legs were as tall as I was and she came equipped with all the desirable options necessary for 17 year old boys, most of the time generous with her gifts. I sure didnt know how good I had it. I still have the Mustang, would give up body parts to have the cub back I learned to fly in, I see the girl every now and then and father time hasnt been her friend. Must be why I am happy with my Scout:lol: and the next girl who has hung around for 32 years

Now lets see a pix of your 2 Zekes

Jim

The mustang looks the same now as in the pic, I wonder what the super cub looks like. I see its In GA now.
 
Kase,
Hopefully you have flown a Scout, so you can respond to this from actual experence?
Anyway my question to you my friend is this, lets take both airplanes and start chucking moosemeat into them till we can roll them both up Onto a set of scales so they both weigh exactly 2000 lbs so we are comparing apples to apples, so lets saddle up and find out what your best guess ,at how much room Its going to take to get off, at 60 degrees say 500ft elev ?? (Going to need that long tape measure again? )Now thats ONE number for getting" off"? Now how about getting "out"


My Scout weighs #1340 on 29" BW with fixed prop and small tanks. I believe this plane could fly at #2600 restricted for Ag use and normal cat. is of course #2150. Heavy, it climbs well. Once it breaks ground. T.O. a hair longer than the cub when both light but...... Flying the same load (heavy) in a stock PA-18 with O320 takes second to the 8GCBC. That is with my flying and my observations. Heavy or over gross I would rather be in the 8GCBC than my Cub. I haven't flown the 0360 PA-18 so don't know what they are like but assume a great improvement. #1750 compared to #2150 gross weights is a huge difference between ships so it's not really comparing apples to apples on paper. A fully loaded and fueled PA-18 in stock form will be over weight with 2 adults headed for vacation (at least mine is). The older Scout with fixed prop and same fuel load as the 18 will be legal.
 
20150317_163621.jpgAs far as legal is consirned having weighed a bunch of Super Cubs over the years , all rigged up in their Alaskan dress clothes with heavy gear , big tires , and borer prop, most of them actually weighed around 1170- 1225............. on certified digital scales; 95% of the owners always had an amended weight and balance, that showed something in the thousand pound area............... of course many Cubs now have the 2000lb GW increase done on them nowadays; to grab the extra 250lbs, for 135 operations, So I guess if you are still calling the GW 1750, then you got about a 550 useful , so legally you could carry two 250lb people and 50 lbs of gas.. what do the really carry ????
One of our strips we guided off for years on the Chilchitna Stream, off the Mulchatna River, was on a ridge and had about 700ft to where the tundra was too rough to use, We used to call a "good load" for a 150hp everyday SC, One complete Bull Moose , thats all four quarters , the antlers tied on the wing struts , and the headskin thrown in on top of the meat............. try it off a 700ft strip sometime, when you feel, like your getting really catty with your airplane. Our strip dropped off about a 100 ft into the alders; so there was no aborting the takeoff it was all or none.
I have always figured the cub is "the airplane" for hauling huge loads out of super small places, the wing has fantastic lift at slow airspeeds, that is really not debatable. Could I haul a whole moose off that same strip , with a 7/8 GCBC ???
Rigged up the same way as the Cub, with big tires and long flat prop, vgs, yes you can , would it take off in the exact same spot , probably NOT, is it possible I might have to leave the cape or horns , yes it is possible, But like I have said many times here, it is not a Super Cub , but its a hell of a lot closer than lots of folks think it is! After both airplanes break ground; would it climb with the 18? yes it will and then some, is it more comfortable to fly all day? , yes it is , will it pass it in the air like it is tied? , yes it will, which one would I prefer to fly a thousand miles a day? , no comparison. So everything is a compromise in flying , if the Only thing you want to talk about is; who is going to take off the shortest, that answer is always going to be the same ..................... Huges 500D model,it will easily whip any Cub I ever saw.................
 

Attachments

  • 20150317_163621.jpg
    20150317_163621.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 190
Last edited:
Even on a steep slope? :roll:

"Friendly Scout tip of the day"...

One little issue with the Scout; the (L/R) tanks are connected and there is no way to prevent lateral cross flow of fuel on a slope. Could be a little dangerous with the 70 gal tanks cross feeding. Gets real lopsided. Always keep the lateral axles mostly level when parked, which in reality has not been that big a deal. Just turn the tail until lateral axles evens out. Nose or tail points up/down hill. I personally would have a manual valve to isolate (L/R) tanks but, simplicity is why it's still being made.

The fuel shut off simply prevents flow past the firewall.
 
I left Exeter Maine at 7 am yesterday in my Scout and ate lunch 6.5 hrs later in Wakefield VA and still had almost 2 hrs left in the tanks. This is with 31 bushwheels. 13 hr total to Venice fl. They have great endurance comfort and speed. They just need 500 ft to land. That said I watched a sport cub doing t&gs in a Central Fl with lust in my heart


Dawson sorry I didn't stop wanted to make it to Berkely Co SC last night. Will try to hookup on the way back north

jim
 
That's great range Jim, on a long drag like that the Scout
Is a great airplane, what is your cruise speed on those
Big tires?

8gcbc, That cross flow is apita, I have no idea why in
Heck they did that, with vented caps if its parked with a
Wing low ,one can expect to see gas running
Shortly down the low wing........omg
Only thing worse is the early
Citabrias that only have ONE fuel gauge?
 
That's great range Jim, on a long drag like that the Scout
Is a great airplane, what is your cruise speed on those
Big tires?

8gcbc, That cross flow is apita, I have no idea why in
Heck they did that, with vented caps if its parked with a
Wing low ,one can expect to see gas running
Shortly down the low wing........omg
Only thing worse is the early
Citabrias that only have ONE fuel gauge?

Reading the fuel schematics drawing and couldn't believe it at first! I guess it makes it more simple, and does not bother me anymore but, I thought that if anyone was/is interested in a Scout they should known it needs to be generally level in order to keep fuel levels reasonably equal.
 
It's for part 23 certification purposes. Husky and Top Cub have same issue. It's that crossover line in top of winshield.

MTV
 
It's for part 23 certification purposes. Husky and Top Cub have same issue. It's that crossover line in top of winshield.

MTV

OK, thanks. I come from the light twin world and it took me a second (or three) to figure it out.
 
That's great range Jim, on a long drag like that the Scout
Is a great airplane, what is your cruise speed on those
Big tires?

8gcbc, That cross flow is apita, I have no idea why in
Heck they did that, with vented caps if its parked with a
Wing low ,one can expect to see gas running
Shortly down the low wing........omg
Only thing worse is the early
Citabrias that only have ONE fuel gauge?

Turbo, I, I have been taking a page from the Husky drivers for awhile. I turn the engine at 2000 rpm manifold pressure 23 leaned to about 6.3 GPS on the fuel scan, that gives me about 106 mph. The 3blade MT is smooth as a turbine at 2000. Most of the Husky guys get down to less gph than I can, with a touch more speed, the airframe must be more efficient. All my engine temps are really nice at these settings so I leave it there
jim
 
The fuel also flows across at the fuel valve even when turned OFF. This is why caution must be used when moored on floats. Particularly if one of the floats is leaky.

Agreed. Even if the fuel level is below the vent, if will laterally equalize through the lines behind the on/off valve.
 
Jim those numbers are impressive, your getting along at a respectable airspeed burning exactly what the old 0-290D2 burned................. very cool economy cruise! Be glad your in Fla, we had 17" two day ago and 7" last nite, only got up to 19 here all day with gusts to 40mph.................. omg its more like Fairbanks than Houlton............. oh boy guess it will still come spring soon and you can get back to plantin spuds!!!!
 
If someone is really interested you can come here and fly all 3. Cub, Citabria and a Husky. My clown tires are coming off next week and I can put a sensenich prop on. Husky has been modified some with 3 in ext gear and a MT prop so its a little slower than a stock one. Make a decision for yourself. Also a Scout here but its for sale.

20150314_102225.jpg20150313_142314.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20150314_102225.jpg
    20150314_102225.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 200
  • 20150313_142314.jpg
    20150313_142314.jpg
    584.6 KB · Views: 194
Jim those numbers are impressive, your getting along at a respectable airspeed burning exactly what the old 0-290D2 burned................. very cool economy cruise! Be glad your in Fla, we had 17" two day ago and 7" last nite, only got up to 19 here all day with gusts to 40mph.................. omg its more like Fairbanks than Houlton............. oh boy guess it will still come spring soon and you can get back to plantin spuds!!!!

Looks like zero for us by dawn, 5f right now

Glenn
 
Hmmm. Sorry to tear the scab off of this one. Speaking as someone without a dog in this fight I have a question. My question is assuming the mods (turbo described)to a gcbc with either an o320 or o360 compared to the comparably powered 18 with similar aoa. What is the percentage of the time you actually use that small percentage of performance, even in commercial ops? I understand the desire to have and fly the 18, so this is more a question of opportunity cost, not a Chevy/Ford debate. So the question is this, what's the cost for every shorter takeoff a cub makes versus the ability to have more cruise speed, shorter times on legs. and better use of go juice per mile/distance flown? I'm curious because I'm about to start the search for a project of 150-200hp, and I gotta say I'm not commited to the idea of any 1 airframe, and since I'm going ex... I might even hang cub wings on a gcbc.... help me see what I'm not seeing. Thanks in advance.
Guy
 
Hmmm. Sorry to tear the scab off of this one. Speaking as someone without a dog in this fight I have a question. My question is assuming the mods (turbo described)to a gcbc with either an o320 or o360 compared to the comparably powered 18 with similar aoa. What is the percentage of the time you actually use that small percentage of performance, even in commercial ops? I understand the desire to have and fly the 18, so this is more a question of opportunity cost, not a Chevy/Ford debate. So the question is this, what's the cost for every shorter takeoff a cub makes versus the ability to have more cruise speed, shorter times on legs. and better use of go juice per mile/distance flown? I'm curious because I'm about to start the search for a project of 150-200hp, and I gotta say I'm not commited to the idea of any 1 airframe, and since I'm going ex... I might even hang cub wings on a gcbc.... help me see what I'm not seeing. Thanks in advance.
Guy

When we built my cub I thought about t-craft wings , they are faster than a cub but I don’t know if they would haul as big a load as a cub wing. Clint has built a couple cubs with Cessna 150 wings and likes them. That’s what’s nice about experimental, lots of options


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Hmmm. Sorry to tear the scab off of this one. Speaking as someone without a dog in this fight I have a question. My question is assuming the mods (turbo described)to a gcbc with either an o320 or o360 compared to the comparably powered 18 with similar aoa. What is the percentage of the time you actually use that small percentage of performance, even in commercial ops? I understand the desire to have and fly the 18, so this is more a question of opportunity cost, not a Chevy/Ford debate. So the question is this, what's the cost for every shorter takeoff a cub makes versus the ability to have more cruise speed, shorter times on legs. and better use of go juice per mile/distance flown? I'm curious because I'm about to start the search for a project of 150-200hp, and I gotta say I'm not commited to the idea of any 1 airframe, and since I'm going ex... I might even hang cub wings on a gcbc.... help me see what I'm not seeing. Thanks in advance.
Guy
Since you are planning to build your own, you could consider a wide body PA-18 kit with long flaps. Stick 180 hp on the nose with one of the new lightweight constant speed props. You will get the short field performance of the Cub along with the speeds and elbow room of the GCBC.
 
Hmmm. Sorry to tear the scab off of this one. Speaking as someone without a dog in this fight I have a question. My question is assuming the mods (turbo described)to a gcbc with either an o320 or o360 compared to the comparably powered 18 with similar aoa. What is the percentage of the time you actually use that small percentage of performance, even in commercial ops? I understand the desire to have and fly the 18, so this is more a question of opportunity cost, not a Chevy/Ford debate. So the question is this, what's the cost for every shorter takeoff a cub makes versus the ability to have more cruise speed, shorter times on legs. and better use of go juice per mile/distance flown? I'm curious because I'm about to start the search for a project of 150-200hp, and I gotta say I'm not commited to the idea of any 1 airframe, and since I'm going ex... I might even hang cub wings on a gcbc.... help me see what I'm not seeing. Thanks in advance.
Guy

Go fly both a see for yourself

Glenn
 
Cub parts are much easier to get flying fast- need a wing, tail feathers or other parts? someone has it hanging on a wall somewhere close you can buy/rent. On the road system up here I think a guy could have any cub part needed within 24 hours. Commercial work that is important.

They feel different landing, and the difference is in the slower speed in that arena, not the take off.
 
Best way to compare them is to fly a GCBC with Vortex generators, lightweight starter n alternator, Oddessy battery; with 31" tires and an 80x41 prop. Compare it to an 18 with no Vortex generators, original starter n generator. 35 amp battery and 6:00x6 tires and a standard 74x56 prop. See what you think.........
( Reason for that is everyone that has a cub will want to reverse all those options) :lol:
All cub guys love CUBS. Really wouldnt matter if EVERYTHING else about ANY other airplane was better : But the CUB gets off the ground 3 ft faster; they will give away everthing, to get off quicker. I have a bunch of buddys running 35" tires with long flat props, on 18's in Alaska , they are talking about seeing 75/80 mph, pretty common numbers on their gps. Its all relative to the mission you have.

/\\\\/\\\\\\\\ JUST KIDDING //\/\\\\\\\\\\\\:wink:
 
Last edited:
Turbo, I'm not looking at which I'd like to have more. If flying for pay, what's your guess at the percentage of missions you actually flew in which you HAD to have that last little bit of slow flight extra lift and shorter TO the SC provided over any other airframe ? I only ask because around here (at altitude) I had always assumed the only way to go was a producer, -12, or an-18, until I read this thread. I knew the scout was an option, but had no idea it was that close in ability, or that much better at cruise. I'm only doing rudimentary math here... mission percentage of need versus 80k+ (min. cost to build an sc) or 40-60k(gcbc cost for prop gear, tires and vg's). How much am I paying extra for the SC per any given actually have to have mission requirement? So if I'm investing in 20-30k more, what is it costing me, every time I actually HAVE to have the SC for the mission over and above any other comparably equipped airframe?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top