• 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!

185 vs Supercub

A long prop would help aLOT.

My early 180 is 326 pound lighter empty weight.

I have a Sportsman cuff, but I wouldnt sneeze at the Horton Cuff. It does something, especially if VG'd.
 
Poor takeoff performance - 180

Dave, Stewart, et al:
From previous owner's tenure - check out the underlined sections of this engine logbook entry.
That, and my poor airmanship probably accounts for some of it. Last engine compressions were 60, 65, 65, 76, 60, 65/80.

WIN_20170525_10_55_11_Pro.jpg
 

Attachments

  • WIN_20170525_10_55_11_Pro.jpg
    WIN_20170525_10_55_11_Pro.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 373
Last edited:
Not questioning the log entry, but isn't it pretty unusual for a tach to read lower than actual RPM? I've seen lots of them that read 100-200 rpm higher than actual, but never seen one reading low. Guess you can't take anything for granted!
 
mvivion said:
Peel the Horton kit off and install a Sportsman. No comparison there.

MTV
Click to expand...
Mike,

I went up last week in 25F temps at 3,000’ AGL and did some stalls with full fuel (75g), 40 lbs baggage, 400 lbs of sandbags and me - about 2,950 lbs. CG was more or less centered in the envelope.

Stall with full flaps/40 degrees was below 50 mph (ASI inaccurate/varying when it started stalling) with no dramatic wing drop. Stall with three flaps at approx 55 mph and two flaps at approx 62 mph.

Bird has micro vg’s and the Horton, with the newer camber lift Cessna wing. I’m not sure it’s worth changing it out unless I’m going to do STOL competitions, which I’m not!
John
 
Dave Calkins said:
My '53 180 with 225 HP is a 400 foot airplane all day long at gross at sea level and 60 deg F

that is 400 foot takeoffs. The landings are shorter. Not bragging, just really happy with my 180
Click to expand...

I've got a 54 about the same, but it gets 1 hr a year and the Supercub gets about 400. Just depends on what you use it for. for pure fun flying, the topdeck 11 beats them both.
I wouldn't take a knife to a gunfight or cut my steak with a gun. :new_rofl:
 
isilverone said:
I loved my 185, i just put an IO-550 in it and had all the mods. But it is worlds apart from the cub. I was using the 185 for work and play but its not fast enough for buis travel and wasnt fun enough for play time. Got the Cub, now looking for a Cirrus or Mooney for buis commute..
Click to expand...
Around here, the Cirrus crowd are taught to fly very large traffic patterns that would make a B-52 pilot proud, but would amount to a decent cross-country for a Cub. I think it's part of the formal training... That should make switching back and forth between the two planes "interesting"... LOL
 
I wouldnt pull off the Horton JohnnyO. Maybe more horsepower for your airplane which is pretty much at 185/300hp weight.

It seems to me that better power to weight ratio is what makes pretty much ANY toy or machine extra fun to operate (play with!)

The early 180's were lightweight, and a hoot to fly! SuperCubs that are light or highly powered are a hoot!

also....Empty 185's and 206's, empty Beavers, grossed-out Turbine Otters (oops, theres an anomoly!)

PS. the light 180's are 200 foot takeoff and landing airplanes when light on fuel and no cargo at SeaLevel, no wind.
 
Dave I have seen Alan do this. Shorter takeoff than my cub and landing was 20-30 feet longer. Very, very impressive. Guy drives a Cessna better than anyone I've seen.
 
Ha, I don't think he does. Pretty sure he is on his 3rd engine in his 180. Its bare bones at 1800# and a carbureted 520. This year in Port Alsworth Fly in he had a 83' takeoff 10 kts of wind and my cub was 103'. Granted I was still pretty new but he is one hell of a Cessna driver. Almost makes me mad what he can do compared to my cub...

On another note, the biggest plus I see to the cub is the ability to get into the tight spots but they really shine in the soft or rough stuff. Looking at energy distribution to the gear legs of a 180 vs the TK1 shocks on an exp cub is night and day. Plus I can taxi through and land with 35s at 4.5 psi way better than a 180 on 31 will do.
 
JohnnyR said:
Does he give lessons?
J
Click to expand...

Just takes practice and a feel for the plane. Lots of practice, then more.

You must fly the plane controlled on approach right at the lowest speed you can, and hit the spot perfect every time.

I would be at 50 mph indicated on final, then slow to 40 short final and be holding brakes at touchdown. The tail is buffeting slightly, as in the yoke oscillates quickly forward and back a bit when that slow.

You also have to be current in the plane, and have good air. Takes practice, and practice.
 
Practice, practice! I'm putting time in the saddle, slowly & carefully exploring the limits, trying to get the judgement along with the perspective and muscle movement. Just wish someone would pay me to do this!

The Skywagon sure is a different beast at or near gross. While mine is 1,850 empty, it feels relatively light and responsive in the sub-2,000's compared to 3,200. Wallows like a water buffalo full of inertia.

aktango58 said:
Just takes practice and a feel for the plane. Lots of practice, then more.

You must fly the plane controlled on approach right at the lowest speed you can, and hit the spot perfect every time.

I would be at 50 mph indicated on final, then slow to 40 short final and be holding brakes at touchdown. The tail is buffeting slightly, as in the yoke oscillates quickly forward and back a bit when that slow.

You also have to be current in the plane, and have good air. Takes practice, and practice.
Click to expand...
 
I had a 56' that weighted about 1630 pure stock and at gross you could. Slow to 45 mph on short final, and at 42 it would land short in a river ,lol, or so I'm told. 6" of water and three feet or so short. After that I set the limit to 45 on approaches. I now have a 185 with a much higher gross but the speeds don't compare at all. I miss the 56' but no range with small tanks, still love flying the wagon.
I can't wait to get my Husky done to play in the bush!
 
What are your stall speeds at ~3,000? I realize every airplane is different, but am curious. My perception is that my '73 is essentially an underpowered 185 in terms of flight characteristics. Hence the hunt for a big motor option. Thus far PPonk seems the best fit.
J

algonquin said:
I had a 56' that weighted about 1630 pure stock and at gross you could. Slow to 45 mph on short final, and at 42 it would land short in a river ,lol, or so I'm told. 6" of water and three feet or so short. After that I set the limit to 45 on approaches. I now have a 185 with a much higher gross but the speeds don't compare at all. I miss the 56' but no range with small tanks, still love flying the wagon.
I can't wait to get my Husky done to play in the bush!
Click to expand...
 
The early models grossed out around 2,600, (been years since I looked at that number). Later models had beefed up wings and stiffer gear.

Which tail do you have?

No matter what you do to your 73, I don't think it will ever be the STOL plane the early models were. The control feel of the late models are that of a 206- when our DO flew the 185 for the first time she had a hard time pulling up because the force was way beyond what she was used to, and her brain was saying DANGER! That was just normal.

Early models have control forces that of the 172s, light and nimble.

For light and nimble you give up beef in structure, which means gross weight and strength.

Great planes, but different.
 
Don't worry Johnny, your '73 will do fine. It just needs a power boost to let it comfortably get out of places it can get into.

:cheers
 
aktango58 said:
Which tail do you have?
Click to expand...

185 tail w/ upgross to 3190. Don’t think I would have bought one without it, as our mission frequently requires 1,000+ lbs payload.
Disconnecting the elevator return spring made a huge difference and it is now balanced and light. Not required for land planes, per Cessna MM.
 
stewartb said:
Don't worry Johnny, your '73 will do fine. It just needs a power boost to let it comfortably get out of places it can get into.

:cheers
Click to expand...

Hoping for it this November! I have to talk to you about that Acorn exhaust...
 
There it is. Smooth flowing risers and collector running to a gutted muffler. The seaplane tailpipe is gusseted and the shroud is dammed off to vent that pesky crack area and not include it under the shroud. My old exhaust had the leaky clamped joints. This is a big improvement for leaks and the performance boost is a bonus.

008.JPG


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 

Attachments

  • 008.JPG
    008.JPG
    343.2 KB · Views: 196
skywagon8a said:
This is less $$$ than more horsepower and gives improved short field landing performance with the throttle closed as well as take off, climb and cruise. https://www.wingxstol.com/html/products.html
Click to expand...
I hear ya. However, I’m going to need a new engine shortly (low compressions and high time don’t justify just a top overhaul)and the delta between a well built 470 and the PPonk is likely less than the cost of WingX plus install. Either way, I need a new engine and since we fly heavy, high and short, with the promise of skis next year and floats in the summer, the HP increase just makes sense...
J
p.s. Shorter landings with throttles closed are news to me. How’s that occur? I’ve experienced the opposite and can land on the spot I want by dumping power held through final. Maybe another thread needed for that discussion...
 
JohnnyR said:
p.s. Shorter landings with throttles closed are news to me. How’s that occur? I’ve experienced the opposite and can land on the spot I want by dumping power held through final. Maybe another thread needed for that discussion...
Click to expand...
Simple, more wing area, lower stall speeds, same (throttle closed) power, less runway required.
 
So why did you add a 550 to your own plane? It appears you subscribe to the power component. Just not for others?
 
Don't be arrogant stewart, My plane has had wing extensions and drooping ailerons for 35+ years. I made my own before the STC products were available.
 
I wasn't intending to be arrogant. It was a question.

A 180 will land shorter than it'll take off. Horsepower is the best solution I know to equalize that. The heavier the 180 the more it helps. My own 3190# 180 needed the power boost to make the capacity useful.
 
I'm always in favor of the most horsepower one can practically install taking into consideration weight and balance. You can always pull the power back for economy purposes, but you can't push it further if you need it. Some, like the Lycoming TSIO-540-J2BD in the 185 are too heavy to be practical as they become too nose heavy requiring too much ballast. They do go upstairs fast though and they do love gasoline.
 
Last edited:
skywagon8a said:
Simple, more wing area, lower stall speeds, same (throttle closed) power, less runway required.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about power off approaches? How can you land precisely with power off during final/short final?

I ask because in short strips or off airport zones that don't give much leeway for error, a power-off approach leaves too many uncontrolled variables on the table for me, not least of which is the ability to control my glide path with precision. At least when flying a power on, stabilized approach you will have precise control over approach path, descent rate, and touchdown speed. And, how do I compensate for wind gusts, lift, sink and turbulence with the power off?

My plane stalls at slower speeds with power on than power off. Doesn't yours?

 
skywagon8a said:
I'm always in favor of the most horsepower one can practically install taking into consideration weight and balance. You can always pull the power back for economy purposes, but you can't push it further if you need it. Some, like the Lycoming TSIO-520-J2BD in the 185 are too heavy to be practical as they become too nose heavy requiring too much ballast. They do go upstairs fast though and they do love gasoline.
Click to expand...

I've never flown a 350hp Skywagon but it sure sounds like fun. Last I looked, Wup Winn had a Maule listed on his webpage with that 350hp motor. That would be a monster!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NimpoCub
Patience is an overrated virtue.
Replies
12
Views
7K
moneyburner
moneyburner
Cardiff Kook
Should I buy a 2nd plane- " fast family hauler"
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
15K
sharp
sharp
sj
NX-CUB First Impressions
2
Replies
52
Views
52K
mam90
M
tackdog
Javron PA18 newbie
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
phdigger123
phdigger123
55-PA18A
Jack Wilson
Replies
1
Views
3K
Cub Kid
Cub Kid
Back
Top