The Never Ending Debate

Hi All,

I own a Super Cub in Maine and I really enjoy doing flight instruction with my airplane. I think it is the perfect platform for teaching tailwheel and float flying. I do about 5-10 tailwheel endorsements in shoulder seasons and 10-15 float ratings over the summer and hopefully more in the years to come. My wife and I loved kicking around in the Super Cub. It is the perfect airplane for two people.
I have two major problems. One is three and the other is two months old. I need four seats. I want to continue to do tailwheel and float instruction and I want to keep it basic. Speed is not a concern. I'm thinking fixed pitch propeller. I'd like to have a pretty predictable tailwheel airplane. Needs brakes on both sides. Getting parts quickly can be a concern. In my opinion the perfect engine would be O-360 Lycoming.

Here is what I'm looking at:

Aeronca Sedan 180hp - Never flown one
Pros - Simple, Good performance floats and wheels,
Cons - Can't find one. Underfloated? Anyone regularly do tailwheel instruction in one?

Stinson - Never flown one
Pros - People who have them seem to love them
Cons - Not many float options, hard to find one with a 180 Lycoming

Maule MX7- 180 Flown one a little on wheels
Pros - I love the back door
Cons - Not a great tailwheel instruction airplane? - Advise against wheel landings. Seems like they have a lot of prop strikes
Insurance for instruction is probably crazy expensive

170B 180hp I have some time in an O-300 and a O-360 Continental
Pros - Probably be a great airplane....
Cons - Way too much money - Cessna parts


Pacer I can't get over how short the wings are...


I have a lot of time in 180's floats and wheels and I love the airplane, but the operating cost is too high and I don't like it for instruction, to much airplane for bouncing around the lakes or pattern.
We are a pretty light family. Right now the family weighs roughly 360lbs and in 10 years we'll hopefully be around 500lbs-540lbs if I drink light beer.

thoughts / recommendations? I guess mostly what I'm looking for is experiences people have instructing in these airplanes. I'm not in a rush to get something but I have to start looking.

And the answer is No. I can't keep the cub and loose the kids!

Thanks

Sawyer

105special said:

Hi All,

I own a Super Cub in Maine and I really enjoy doing flight instruction with my airplane. I think it is the perfect platform for teaching tailwheel and float flying. I do about 5-10 tailwheel endorsements in shoulder seasons and 10-15 float ratings over the summer and hopefully more in the years to come. My wife and I loved kicking around in the Super Cub. It is the perfect airplane for two people.
I have two major problems. One is three and the other is two months old. I need four seats. I want to continue to do tailwheel and float instruction and I want to keep it basic. Speed is not a concern. I'm thinking fixed pitch propeller. I'd like to have a pretty predictable tailwheel airplane. Needs brakes on both sides. Getting parts quickly can be a concern. In my opinion the perfect engine would be O-360 Lycoming.

Here is what I'm looking at:

Aeronca Sedan 180hp - Never flown one
Pros - Simple, Good performance floats and wheels,
Cons - Can't find one. Underfloated? Anyone regularly do tailwheel instruction in one?

Stinson - Never flown one
Pros - People who have them seem to love them
Cons - Not many float options, hard to find one with a 180 Lycoming

Maule MX7- 180 Flown one a little on wheels
Pros - I love the back door
Cons - Not a great tailwheel instruction airplane? - Advise against wheel landings. Seems like they have a lot of prop strikes
Insurance for instruction is probably crazy expensive

170B 180hp I have some time in an O-300 and a O-360 Continental
Pros - Probably be a great airplane....
Cons - Way too much money - Cessna parts


Pacer I can't get over how short the wings are...


I have a lot of time in 180's floats and wheels and I love the airplane, but the operating cost is too high and I don't like it for instruction, to much airplane for bouncing around the lakes or pattern.
We are a pretty light family. Right now the family weighs roughly 360lbs and in 10 years we'll hopefully be around 500lbs-540lbs if I drink light beer.

thoughts / recommendations? I guess mostly what I'm looking for is experiences people have instructing in these airplanes. I'm not in a rush to get something but I have to start looking.

And the answer is No. I can't keep the cub and loose the kids!

Thanks

Sawyer

View attachment 56916

Click to expand...

Keep the supercub. Move the kids around in a minivan or add a C-172 to the fleet. You are probably overestimating how much family flying you will do. And congratulations on the little ones. To make things really simple keep the supercub and have a third, and fourth, and fifth, etc., then you are out of reasonable accommodating airplanes get to keep the supercub and buy a cool minivan.

I think that is the best idea. I have had two Stinsons, and have logged enough 180 time that the local flying club made me the primary 180 instructor.
The 108-5 is a good airplane - I imagine a Lyc 180 C/S 108-2 would be even better. They will lift what a 180 will, but are kinda slow. The 108-3, in spite of its huge fin, runs out of rudder below 15 kts crosswind. The 180 can handle as much crosswind as you can. Cost is the big driver, with a good Stinson 1/3 the cost of a dirtbag 180.

I am with you - never set foot in an Aeronca sedan. Wanna see a Pacer perform? Go visit Don Lee in Talkeetna.

Sawyer When I get my experimental PA-11 done the wife thinks I should sell my 11 so just get the wife her license problem solved pa-18 and a pa-11 can't get much better than that. And NO the amphibs won't go with that plane but I do have 1320's and skis that may ;-). Douten

Sedan's (https://burlac.com) are very nice with power. Lots of them around up here. Some Old Timers claim they will outlift at C-170B with the same power. Saw a nice one land today real short on floats. Ask MTV here about 170-B's and others he has flown.

Gary

Earle (Turbobeaver) has some experience with sedans with 0360's on floats. Maybe he will chime in here. I recall that he said they performed well but he had issue with them on floats about the hulls being to close together? I recall he said it was a bear in the wind and rough water. I watched one go out of the local airport a few yrs back on wheels with two large men and full fuel and it was a serious performer. There were a couple at the Millinocket Lake flying service in the 50's with the standard engine on floats. I was just a tot and only remember that they went out of sight down the lake still on the water. LOL

supercrow said:

Earle (Turbobeaver) has some experience with sedans with 0360's on floats. Maybe he will chime in here. I recall that he said they performed well but he had issue with them on floats about the hulls being to close together? I recall he said it was a bear in the wind and rough water. I watched one go out of the local airport a few yrs back on wheels with two large men and full fuel and it was a serious performer. There were a couple at the Millinocket Lake flying service in the 50's with the standard engine on floats. I was just a tot and only remember that they went out of sight down the lake still on the water. LOL

Click to expand...

I had never heard about them being a bear in rough water until I read Bush Flying Angler by Lee Wulff. He had a sedan for part of one summer and he flipped it over turning downwind to upwind in some rough conditions. He said that it was winds J3 would have had no trouble handling. So he went back to flying J3s

I happen to like the "pugley" 20 or 22/20...

Lots of 'em used as seaplane trainers, that's exactly how I met my first one.

Tow hook and Glider? (A Taylorcraft DG of course, and when the kids get older you can legally convert it to a DC-65.) 152 TL (but it's 120 lb. total rear seat capacity is only a temporary solution). Wag Aero's (or anyone's 2+2 would have to be an NX so Collings ******* the pooch on that one)

There’s a guy in Nashua that gives instruction in a sedan. Fly before you buy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What GregB said.
It makes you money, Plus You already have what a lot of people can’t afford, don’t give it up. I made that mistake…once.

PA-14, with appropriate mods, the best of both worlds!

bob turner said:

I think that is the best idea. I have had two Stinsons, and have logged enough 180 time that the local flying club made me the primary 180 instructor. The 108-5 is a good airplane - I imagine a Lyc 180 C/S 108-2 would be even better. They will lift what a 180 will, but are kinda slow. ....

Click to expand...

From Wiki:

"108-5A single 108-5 was built by Univair, who purchased the Stinson 108 type certificate from Piper, in 1964. The 108-5 used a 180 hp (134 kW) Franklin 6A-335-B1 engine. Univair offered kits to convert earlier aircraft to this standard.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] The 108-5 brought total model 108 production to 5,261, of which 5,135 were built by Stinson, 125 by Piper, and 1 by Univair.[SUP][9] "


I doubt he's gonna be able to find the single 108-5 that was produced, even if he can the 180 Franklin doesn't really seem like a a viable choice these days.
I'm surprised you even brought this one up.

[/SUP]

4-place Supercub would be choice #1. Not cheap but nothing worth having is. Aeronca Sedans work well but for teaching? No flaps. You’ll get some resistance to that. And they’re old. Guys that can fly them well like them but it isn’t lost on me that the guy I know with the most Sedan time now flies a Maule, which should probably occupy position 2 on your list. If you can find a Producer? Great performer. Not easy to find, though. You sould also consider a 170-B. Especially with 180 hp. Very capable airplanes. I wouldn’t pass on a good one with 145 hp if it stayed on tires.

I doubt he's gonna be able to find the single 108-5 that was produced, even if he can the 180 Franklin doesn't really seem like a a viable choice these days.
I'm surprised you even brought this up.

I actually owned one. It was a stunning airplane, and a good performer - Madrid Red with Cub Yellow stripes. I think it resides in southeast Alaska now. No idea how many there are, or how easy it is to overhaul the 180 Franklin. I bet the 220 Franklin version is startling!

When I was born my dad had a Citabria, and before my sibling was born he sold it and bought a 180 horse 170B. The 4 of us flew a lot more when the sibling still had not gone to school yet but still overall it was mostly me and him. I think the family flying depends a lot on the attitude of your kids to flying. I graduated with another guy who's dad had a 170 but both he and his brother were prone to airsickness so they never really went with their dad. The 170 is a great airplane and empty it is comparable to a heavier -12 or -14, a nice one can be even lighter than that, but with a 2200 lb GW (I think). His has the 180/185 baggage door which is really nice but a big job to modify, otherwise all of your stuff goes in over the back seat.

Thanks for the input. I really like the Super Cub for instruction. I like sitting in the back and I really like having my own throttle. I have access to a 182 on wheels and we use it to go visit my wife's family in southern Maine and so far everyone enjoys flying. I figure if we do it enough it will be as natural as jumping in the car. I may just have to find someone with a 180 on floats and trade time in the Super Cub.

There are so many really cool spots within a 15-20 minute flight of Rangeley. I am constantly seeing places while instructing that would be fun to take the family. Last summer the older one would ride on Mom's lap but she is more comfortable with that than I am and with two it gets that much harder.....

I think the PA-14 or Producer (Are any Bushmasters certified?) would be a great option but I haven't seen one for sale in a long time. The 4-seat cub is out of my price range but even if it wasn't it only has one stick in the middle and I can't imagine instructing with one stick. I'm stuck in the certified world... I'll take a closer look at all the option. I have a hard time imaging missing these years to come and not being able to take the family to all these amazing places I see everyday.

Good advice Tom. Whatever I consider I need to fly it before I buy it.

Thanks

Sawyer

The more I think about it, the more I realize Pushaw Tim had the right idea. He operated a 172 on floats for instruction and charter. Parts are readily available and it cost a lot less per hour to operate. The trick--he upgraded the engine to higher HP on an STC so it was the functional equivalent of a Hawk XP. It performed very well on the water (he had it on a set of Baumann floats) and regularly took pretty good loads in and out of all of the sporting camps up north.

So, for the biggest bang for your buck go with a common certified Cessna Skyhawk that has been or can be upgraded to your personal specs for use as a floatplane.

And the Cub stays. It's your trademark.

Need to hook you up with Steve at Grey Ghost Camps on Moosehead river. He has a 170 on 2000. I'd bet he would like some 18 time

Glenn

I'd go for the Maule personally although I've never flown a sedan. I like that you can get a relatively new airplane for a reasonable amount of money in a Maule. I got my tailwheel endorsement in a Stinson 108-3, but I found them really loud and it felt a bit cramped, ANCIENT, and slow (franklin engine). The Maule is no more difficult to handle in my opinion. C170B is great, but the value is just not there anymore for these ancient airplanes imho. They're expensive.

I guess I fall in the keep the cub camp, too. Find a Maule as a second airplane. Last year I saw a few flying Maules for sale around here that were half the price of an old Supercub.

I have a Maule and I have a supercub. My Maule is a trigear MT-7 235 with 8.5 main wheels. Even as a trigear it can land almost anywhere the SC can go. Because of the speed and range, it actually greatly increases the number of places you will be able to visit.

It has 5 seats, but the 5th seat is superfluous. It has an autopilot, great IFR avionics ( you do want to keep your IFR credentials current, don't you?) and it is much, much faster than the SC for longer trips. Flight plan for 140 TAS.

The supercub is my favorite, of course, if I could I would take it to heaven with me, but the Maule can hold a lot of stuff and people pounds, more so if you don't use the auxiliary tanks. Climb rate is fantastic with the 235 engine especially. Great high DA performance. TW Maules DON"T have more props strikes than any other plane, that's just a story cooked up by the jealous haters. Like "Bonanzas are doctor killers...", "Cirrus pilots are awful", etc.

The Maule is made to be maintained easily and cheaply. Great fit and finish for the last 25 years. The factory is still up and running and there is great support from them. They're good people. The Maule has a great safety record. I could go on, but you get the idea. Objectively, on balance, it is a more capable plane than the SC in most ways. Subjectively, as a pilot's experience issue, it easily loses to the SC. From the passenger's experience side however, the Maule wins hands down. Your wife will appreciate flying in the front seat. Unless you are a true loner, you want your people to want to fly with you.

Keep the SC but add a Maule. Tailwheel or trigear, it's about the same plane. Don't worry, be happy. Life is short. If you can only do one, at least you will know what your choices and priorities are.

I went through what you’re going through many many years ago. I had a Super Cub on EDO 2000. I wanted to do SES ratings. This was before the 2000 lb kit. Our DPEs were not “petite” by a long shot, but anal about legal weights, which was good. So, there were a fair number of “students” who couldn’t legally take a checkride in my cub.

Also, I personally think the Super Cub is a lousy SES trainer….it just has too good of performance, a student really doesn’t HAVE to learn much technique.

I found a great 170B and a good set of PeeKay B2300 floats for it. That turned out to be a great SES trainer. I did a lot of SES ratings in it. Those floats are big, and they work great with loads, but the sweet spot is narrow, so they make a student FEEL what the floats are doing. That 170 has a 180 Lyc. Which is ideal….try to find one now for a decent price.

Most common floats on 170 are EDO 2000. A LITTLE underfloated there, but….

Sedan is a fantastic seaplane! No flaps and doesn’t need them. With a Lyc 180 hp, it’s a real tiger, on floats or wheels. Damndest plane I’ve ever flown. Look at it and doesn’t seem it’d do well, but it does.

Downsides: they’re rare. Ones with 180 hp more so. There is a spar AD.

Good news: Burl Rogers in Anchorage has the TC and can produce any part. I’d call and talk to Burl (Burl’s Aircraft) about them. He probably knows where they are. He’s one of the good guys.

Maule: great floatplanes. Would NOT be my first second or third choice for tail wheel trainer, though.

Good performance. More than one float option. Side by side seating, which I prefer. Also, my wife will not ride in the back seat of tandem plane. Lots of passengers hate that.

Downside: get a SOLID insurance quote, especially on wheels and instruction. This actually applies to all, but Maule rates can be high. There are reasons for that.

If you’re looking for a Maule, try to find one that’s been rebuilt. Factory workmanship plain sucks, depending on year. One that’s been rebuilt properly can be nice. I’d like to see a LOT more rivets in top wing skins, myself. Friends died when top wing skin came off.

As noted, a good 172, preferably with a 180 hp engine, is probably the best bet all round.

Good insurance rates, lots of parts, everybody knows how to work on them, good performance, etc, etc.

In your situation, that’s what I’d be looking for.

MTV

Add a Maule or Pacer or TriPacer as your budget allows. A 150 or 160 Pacer or TriPacer with the right prop will get in and out of most places with only about 100' more ground run than a stock SuperCub. I agree with Tennessee about the 235 Maule, great airplane. The only problem I've had with 235 Maule's is if carbureted, they are the worst carburetor ice making airplanes I've ever flown. Flew both an M5-235 and an MX-7-235, and both were ice makers even in cruise. Once you got to know it, it isn't a problem, but those first couple hours trying to figure why the power was dropping was a little disconcerting. Flew the MX-7 from Calistoga CA to Poughkeepsie NY. Went to 13,500 for a short time just west of Salt Lake City. Good high altitude performance with all those cubic inches.

mvivion said:

Also, I personally think the Super Cub is a lousy SES trainer….it just has too good of performance, a student really doesn’t HAVE to learn much technique.
MTV

Click to expand...

Whenever I used a 150 Super Cub for SES training, I manually restricted the throttle with my hand so the student was forced to learn the procedure rather than being catapulted airborne.

skywagon8a said:

Whenever I used a 150 Super Cub for SES training, I manually restricted the throttle with my hand so the student was forced to learn the procedure rather than being catapulted airborne.

Click to expand...

I agree. Sometimes it makes it too easy. I have a 74in cruise prop on mine so it make them work a little. At times I get frustrated because when they pull back on the stick it comes out of the water and I wish it would just slow down and make them work for it. I also do some partial power training.

One thing I will say about training in a Super Cub is that everyone that gets out of that airplane has a grin from ear to ear.

I used to teach in a 125 Pacer on 1650s. That made them work, and really made them aware of W&B. I was fortunate that it was on the Hudson, so miles of water for take off. It would get a little rough once in a while though.

skywagon8a said:

Whenever I used a 150 Super Cub for SES training, I manually restricted the throttle with my hand so the student was forced to learn the procedure rather than being catapulted airborne.

Click to expand...

yes, you can restrict the throttle, but that wing has so much lift, and those EDO 2000s just WANT to leap out of the water.

No matter what you do, it’s just too easy in a Super Cub.

MTV

No flaps allowed helps training

Gary

To be honest and balanced, one problem with the Maule that comes to mind is that the user's group at maulepilots.org is nowhere near as helpful as this one.:smile: