• 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!

SuperStol VS Supercub Pros/Cons...Im looking to buy

I thought about buying a Highlander, which of course is not a Super Stol, but similar.

Cons: Didn't like sitting side by side. If you sit in the left seat you fly with your left hand, and I'm right handed. Of course nothing says you have to sit in the left seat. Smaller than the Cub. My son and I both weigh around 225 and thought we would be uncomfortable sitting next to each other for any length of time. Not all mechanics are familiar with the Rotax engine. Other engines are available of course, including a 180 HP Continental. Resale value.

Pros: 4 gallons per hour on the Rotax.

Just my 2 cents worth...
 
Wish I weighed 225. Ask any flight instructor, you.get used to flying with either harnd real quick.
 
Flew Boeings with my left hand. Just prefer flying sticks with my right. To each his own...
 
I would ask myself (if I was you backpacker) while Steve Henry flies a Highlander (though with lots of mods) and not it's variant, the SuperStol. I mean he's doing the STOl drag thing, and hits many of the STOL contests, but not in a SuperStol. Just a separate comment from the entire Cub V. SS thing. He knows the breed better then anyone on the planet.

No pictures of the radiator divertor valve, yet, as I'd have to take off the upper and lower cowls, pm me and I'll send you one next oil change, in a couple weeks or so.
 
Flew Boeings with my left hand. Just prefer flying sticks with my right. To each his own...

A guy could put one stick in the middle like Paul Claus's four place supercub (or the Zenith CH 750). Then the left seater could use his right hand. Simpler setup because you don't need to link two sticks.
 
Having picked up a few wrecks I like the Super Cub structure vs my experience with the lighter structures. I know they fly great but I will compromise and keep my Super Cub.
 
A guy could put one stick in the middle like Paul Claus's four place supercub (or the Zenith CH 750). Then the left seater could use his right hand. Simpler setup because you don't need to link two sticks.

One stick, one throttle, and one set of rudder pedals-- all on left side.
Are dual controls really necessary, esp on something like this?
 
One stick, one throttle, and one set of rudder pedals-- all on left side.
Are dual controls really necessary, esp on something like this?

Reminds me of the guy who said he wanted to die quietly in his sleep like his grandfather. Not kicking and screaming like the passengers in grandpap's airplane.
 
I am a converted Piper driver.

i now have a SuperStol XL
180 hp Lycoming
800+ # useful
Huge bagage area
and very tuff and forgiving with giant gas shocks
(full stall from 15’+ no big deal)

the military tested both the SS and Cub clones for some special project a few years back
at 1750# gross
cub clones couldnt complete the same manuevers or land as short

i have flown many planes over the last 40yrs, and the XL at 900 empty wt is a performer.
- dont fly the XL if you arent in the market - it will put you in the market.

Every plane has its drawbacks, I think the XL sink rate is too high at zero throttle, and takeoff could be better with bigger wing.
- put Slats on a cub and bigger flaps, and gas shocks, then maybe ...

just my 2 cents
 
Last edited:
I am a converted Piper driver.

i now have a SuperStol XL
180 hp Lycoming
800+ # useful
Huge bagage area
and very tuff and forgiving with giant gas shocks
(full stall from 15’+ no big deal)

the military tested both the SS and Cub clones for some special project a few years back
at 1750# gross
cub clones couldnt complete the same manuevers or land as short

i have flown many planes over the last 40yrs, and the XL at 900 empty wt is a performer.
- dont fly the XL if you arent in the market - it will put you in the market.

Every plane has its drawbacks, I think the XL sink rate is too high at zero throttle, and takeoff could be better with bigger wing.
- put Slats on a cub and bigger flaps, and gas shocks, then maybe ...

just my 2 cents

The version I heard of those tests was the the XL did very poor in the climb, was probably at GW but it has been a long time since that conversation.
 
A guy I know used to have a superstol with the 115hp big bore kit. he also built up one with the turbo 914.
I only rode with him once, but the thing I noticed was that after the impressive zoom climb out, when he would clean it up and get rid of the flaps, it would always lose 25-30 feet of altitude. Perhaps just poor pilot technique, but it happened every time I ever watched him take off.
To me, the structure is very light; 1/2” longerons, mainly 3/8” diagonal tubing, and even some 1/4” tubing.
A cub fuselage is built like a sledgehammer in comparison.
They are neat airplanes for sure, I’m not trying to knock them necessarily, but both of those guys that had superstols no longer have them, and are currently flying cubs.
 
... but the thing I noticed was that after the impressive zoom climb out, when he would clean it up and get rid of the flaps, it would always lose 25-30 feet of altitude. Perhaps just poor pilot technique, but it happened every time I ever watched him take off.
A 206 on amphib floats does the same thing. Extending the wings with either Flint tanks or WingX extensions eliminated that characteristic. Perhaps the superstol needs more wing span?
 
More wing

A 206 on amphib floats does the same thing. Extending the wings with either Flint tanks or WingX extensions eliminated that characteristic. Perhaps the superstol needs more wing span?
Yes!

but - doesnt everything need more wing? :lol:

The climb on the 180hp XL is Very Impressive - although I have not done it at gross yet

And the Longerons on mine are not 1/2”
 
Last edited:
doesnt everything need more wing?

Not if you're flying into a tight spot with unfavorable winds. Big high lift wings are fun when you can pick your days. Heavy wing loading has benefits on those other days.
 
Last edited:
A fuselage is like a roofing truss, you can design for larger but fewer individual members, or more numerous but smaller components. Simply extrapolating the strength of any fuselage from the size of the longeron may not tell the whole story? Dean Wilson (the aircraft designer, the Avid Flyer being one of his best known) was a master and devotee of this approach. I remember his big twin engine Global Explorer (think Winnebago with wings) had lots of very small dia tube, all over the frame, like a bird cage, for an airplane it's size, but all triangulated in a way that got the job done. Large dia. simpler frames offer obvious advantages when building them, but may not be the best, weight to a strength ratio wise. All I know for sure is my RANS S-7S has an airframe like my Taylorcraft did, (seen them both naked) and similar gross weights so I'm happy with that.
 
I flew Mike Olson's Ran S-7, he was always bragging how great it was, he had it Bushed up, 29" ABW tires and Baby Bushwheel. I flew it for a couple hours, then I flew his Exp. Super Cub on same day, no doubt which one I would choose. I never cared for Mikes Super Cub Cuzzom to much funky stuff but hands down I would take Mikes Cuzzom over a Rans S7. This was probably 10 years ago, I am sure the Highlander etc. have come a long way.

I have also heard that Steve Henry has had a few engine failures, that is not something I am interested in.

I went to Wild West aircraft and added up what it would cost to build Highlander and for the amount I would spend on a kit and time building it I can have Super Cub. I personally don't get it unless it is all about fuel burn. Everything else is a negative in my book.

I also don't see ever getting back the money and time you have in one (Highlander etc.), maybe I am wrong. Better investment for money and time is a Exp Super Cub or Carbon Cub I think.
 
I flew Mike Olson's Ran S-7, he was always bragging how great it was, he had it Bushed up, 29" ABW tires and Baby Bushwheel. I flew it for a couple hours, then I flew his Exp. Super Cub on same day, no doubt which one I would choose. I never cared for Mikes Super Cub Cuzzom to much funky stuff but hands down I would take Mikes Cuzzom over a Rans S7. This was probably 10 years ago, I am sure the Highlander etc. have come a long way.

I have also heard that Steve Henry has had a few engine failures, that is not something I am interested in.

I went to Wild West aircraft and added up what it would cost to build Highlander and for the amount I would spend on a kit and time building it I can have Super Cub. I personally don't get it unless it is all about fuel burn. Everything else is a negative in my book.

I also don't see ever getting back the money and time you have in one (Highlander etc.), maybe I am wrong. Better investment for money and time is a Exp Super Cub or Carbon Cub I think.
I’d suggest 2 hours in the S-7 isn’t enough to really know the plane, therefore a bit of caution when commenting would be good thing. Unbelievable we still have experienced owner/pilots and wannabes still trying to compare apples and oranges. Both great planes with specific strengths and weaknesses depending on the mission.
 
I was actually being nice, I would not want to spend anymore then 2 hours in it. Did not like it at all.
I have a ton of off airport experience and for my mission that airplane would be broken in a few hours with the kind of playing I like to do.

It would be like trying to ride a Honda 70 in the same places I ride my KTM 300 XC-W. You don't need much time to figure out it is not going to fit the mission...
I’m actually going to be nice too....no comment.
 
Two guys here with S-7's. We do a lot of goofing around together. Solo. the S-7 will kick my butt on takeoff and landings. Put a passenger or bags into the equation and everything changes. When we go camping, guess who gets to carry all the extra stuff ( belly pod)? Oh yeah, two precautionary landings now with the 912 crowd (realistically, one carb shutdowns, meaning they have the choice of where to land but not going too far since they are running on two cyls) Apples and oranges for sure.
They also brag about the 3.5 gph fuel burn. Awesome! They have to drive 14 miles to get premium, non ethanol fuel with lots of five gallon cans in the back of an SUV to do so. They are retired, keeps them, out of trouble.......
 
No need for your S-7 friends to go out of their way to get E0, they must be new to the game, the Rotax burns E10 just fine, I've burned lots of it and cannot tell any difference for the life of me. I have no idea what you mean by their carb issues. I do continue to buy and store E0 in my home bulk tank though. And, if their field elevation is over 2500' ASL and if they had the "Zipper BigBore Low Comp" mod as do I, they could burn REGULAR E-10 no less.

My only limitation with the S-7S is tire size, I only have 29's. Other then that, the air frame handles anything I can throw at it, and about 80% of my flying is off airport, and not at coastal elevations. Pic is from a few days ago, 8650', Idaho/Wyoming border, a place I've been into a lot along with similar. No big deal, dare I say, routine even. 3800 hours TT in type.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20190826_093255829.jpg
    IMG_20190826_093255829.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 365
Backpacker, As you have witnessed here, Us pilots are not just ‘type A personalities, But type AAA’ and as you have also noticed, OPINIONS reflect those traits in what’s considered by the ones giving them as absolute! Having tons of hours in all the lite stuff, I can tell you that some are more user friendly than others. Kinda the difference between the Extra acro mounts and the others. A mediocre pilot will do better in it than the ones that may have a few quirks!
To that same point, the same is true with a Carbon Cub and some of the other knockoffs, and the idea that one will holdup to abuse better than another is crap....If you don’t hit something with’m they all will out live the pilot!
Thats only considering the airframes, Everybody has OPINIONS on the motor used.
Can’t argue the cost issues though. I’m constantly amazed by what folk will pay for a mount. I’ve always looked at my plane purchases as performance for the $ . Some will pay six figures to do something that others can do for a fraction of that! When you are just trying to by performance, It will change how you look at it .
 
I'm not sure what comes first. That it isn't any of my business what other guys pay for planes or that I truly don't care.

Over the years I've had many days where I could get into my cabin strip or onto the creek bed on skis with my 180 when my Cub buddies couldn't due to winds. I've considered WingX and decided against it because it would limit my ops more than expand them. That's an important point to consider. I'll jump into the 180 and launch on days I won't fly my big winged Cub. The difference? Wing loading. Crosswinds and mechanical turbulence are a handful in my Cub compared to the Cessna.

I remember flying out a couple of years ago on what was the roughest day I've encountered in 25 years at Hood. A friend was right in front of me in his Rans. When I got across the inlet and the turbulence calmed I called him on the radio and asked how he enjoyed the ride. He told me he'd rather be in my 1800# airplane than his 800# airplane. Me too!
 
To that same point, the same is true with a Carbon Cub and some of the other knockoffs, and the idea that one will holdup to abuse better than another is crap....If you don’t hit something with’m they all will out live the pilot!

Having maintained, restored and picked up the wreckage I will have to disagree.

I think it is sad that someone asks to compare brand X with a Super Cub on a Super Cub website and when someone gives their opinion others who don't support the site and own brand X get butt hurt. I know SJ wants to cater to everything back country but it is still SuperCub.org and is just someones honest opinion.
 
I thought we had a pretty good discussion going here...

did somebody hurt a feeler and I missed it?
 
Last edited:
So the OP wanted a SS to SC comparison.

SS wing 132sq foot (clean) 153sq ft dirty

Small SS = 800# empty - wing loading 5.3#/sq ft
180 hp XL = 950# empty - wing loading 5.6#/ sq ft

SC wing 175 sq ft (round tip)

Stock = 900# ?? empty - wing loading 5.1#/sq ft
Real = 1,000# empty - wing loading 5.7#/sq ft
(I took both wing areas off Wikipedia - but dont believe either one.) thats not what it comes to when I measure.

XL Cruise speed 110mph (One owner claims 120)
SC ? 100?

Safety is a big one for me, I have not been able to get the XL to wing over yet. The slats just keep it flying.

Ya I know - slats mean high deck angle. But, the flaps are really good! You dont have to do the high deck angle thing if you dont want to. Still lands slow and takes off fast.
These slats dont stay out - they retract.

With 2 big guys and full fuel on 85* day the 180 XL would climb over 2,000 fpm
Power off stall same day was low 30s - indicated

The Super Stol takes some getting used to, when the Slats come out at about 50 mph you gain 13 sq ft of wing area. When the fowler flaps go down you gain another 8 sq ft, so there is also a lot more drag.
Clean it glides like a normal plane, and lands normal. But dirty, when you cut the power it sinks like an over gross TriPacer.
So - you dirty it up, and use power to get where you are going, then plop, your done. The shocks soak up almost all the momentum, very little roll.

This has been my experience with the 180hp XL. I have flown 2 overweight rotax SS and they land short enough but not enough power for takeoff or climb out. The Rotax SS, I have heard, is a real performer with one person and very light airframe, too many goodies and it turns into ms piggy.

As to durability - I havnt bent it yet, and I tend to do that.
Time will tell, but I have made some very hard landings (most on purpose) and the gear just soaks it up. There is very little stress transfered to the structure. I am also very impressed w the structure in the wings, very well engineered, and much more durable (imo) than stock piper.

This has been a stock to stock comparison.
same weight motor - for the XL.

If you go aftermarket cub with slats and shocks and fowler slotted flaps.
you are no longer talking the same money or weight class

I have 110k in mine, about 15k was for quick build stuff, and 31s.
Had I built my own engine, and skipped the extras, prob could have done it for 85k

The rotax SS and the 180hp XL SS are 2 completely different beasts.
- much like the J3 and a 180hp Cub.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top