• 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!

Potential 95 Super Cub Empty Weight?

E

Eric84

Registered User
Hey everyone!

I'm looking at buying 95 Super Cub for a restoration. As it will be torn down and built back up I wanna go semi overboard on keeping it light. Mission for it would be giving rides and one person and gear for camping in vfr day conditions. On to smoothish terrain over 400' If I could be competitive in a stol comp all the better but not required. So my question is with the following ideas do you think a sub 800 possibly 750 pound empty weight is possible.

Weight Savings:
No Electric - No starter - No generator - No lights - No Radio (will have a handheld)
Carbon Floorboards
13 rib wings
1 18 gallon Tank
Oratex Fabric for outer covering and interior (no extended baggage)
Airframes Alaska Lightweight Struts
Standard original 4 instrument dash
If legal, thinner glass or plexi
No flaps
Carbon fiber ground adjustable prop
Magnesium wheels
Other small tricks here and there.

Weight adding:
X brace, H Brace, Float Fittings
3" Extended Gear
29" Airstreaks
Safety Cables
Safety Harnesses
VGs

With the Above what do you think it might weigh empty?

Is there anything else i could do to lighten? Anything you would recommend adding either for safety or something ill truly regret not having?

Thanks everyone!
 
Last edited:
Doug, Do have pics of what you did? would a 24 gallon in only one wing throw off lateral balance?
 
Winters (see Wings & Wheels) make airspeed and altimeters that are much lighter than the originals styles.

Web
 
wireweinie said:
Winters (see Wings & Wheels) make airspeed and altimeters that are much lighter than the originals styles.
Click to expand...

They are designed for gliders. How well do they stand up to airplane engine vibration? I had to have my Winter 2.25 inch glider instruments rebuilt and I suspect the failures were caused by trailering on rough roads.
 
I've installed box loads of them in the last twenty or so years (all powered aircraft). Only one I had problems with was the one I dropped on the floor.

Web
 
Eric84 said:
Doug, Do have pics of what you did? would a 24 gallon in only one wing throw off lateral balance?
Click to expand...

no it does not. i can let go of the stick with darn near empty or full and i cant notice the difference. once in awhile i thought maybe but then the wind could have been different. i very seldom run it full but there when i need it.
 
scott tailwheels are good but theres lighter if you dont need something as robust as the scott. do you want hydrosorbs? and then i keep thinking if i would have done what your thinking but put a 160 on the front.:lol: also theres some options for the rear seat, how comfortable should the passenger be? look at atlee dodges safari rear seat or bill rusks, which i really like. post #528 in his build.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the rear seat advice! Roughest thing I plan on is smooth Eastern USA River bars so Probly don’t need a big tailwheel.

what are hydrosorbs?
 
Last edited:
the little continentals are good motors. good oil pump housing with crank and rod bearings, cam main bearings and lifter bores in spec and they will run forever.
 
wireweinie said:
I've installed box loads of them in the last twenty or so years (all powered aircraft). Only one I had problems with was the one I dropped on the floor.
Click to expand...

2.25 or 3.125? I got the impression the larger instruments were far more robust. I had to use 2.25 because of very small panel area.
 
Almost exclusively the 2 1/4" instruments. They are my go to items for shrinking an instrument panel.

Web
 
Eric84 said:
Thanks for the rear seat advice! Roughest thing I plan on is smooth Eastern USA River bars so Probly don’t need a big tailwheel.

what are hydrosorbs?
Click to expand...

shock absorbers combined with the landing gear bungees, i have them and have never landed a cub without them, but with the big low pressure tires and smooth landing spots, not sure if there needed??? if using the right bungees. nothing out there that im aware of,thats lighter than bungees by themselves.
 
Ti firewall, carbon tank lid. No accessories and a plastic prop will help as much as anything I bet
 
Eric84 said:
Hey everyone!

I'm looking at buying 95 Super Cub for a restoration. As it will be torn down and built back up I wanna go semi overboard on keeping it light. Mission for it would be giving rides and one person and gear for camping in vfr day conditions. On to smoothish terrain over 400' If I could be competitive in a stol comp all the better but not required. So my question is with the following ideas do you think a sub 800 possibly 750 pound empty weight is possible.

Weight Savings:
No Electric - No starter - No generator - No lights - No Radio (will have a handheld)
Carbon Floorboards
13 rib wings
1 18 gallon Tank
Oratex Fabric for outer covering and interior (no extended baggage)
Airframes Alaska Lightweight Struts
Standard original 4 instrument dash
If legal, thinner glass or plexi
No flaps
Carbon fiber ground adjustable prop
Magnesium wheels
Other small tricks here and there.

Weight adding:
X brace, H Brace, Float Fittings
3" Extended Gear
29" Airstreaks
Safety Cables
Safety Harnesses
VGs

With the Above what do you think it might weigh empty?

Is there anything else i could do to lighten? Anything you would recommend adding either for safety or something ill truly regret not having?

Thanks everyone!
Click to expand...

Potential Modification to the Above list:
Remove from add list:
H Brace
3" extended Change to normal heavy duty gear no safety cables

Add:
removable back seat rail
Possibly Add Flaps (probly not but its still a thought)
 
Last edited:
Eric84 said:
Potential Modification to the Above list:
Remove from add list:
H Brace
3" extended Change to normal heavy duty gear no safety cables

Add:
removable back seat rail
Add Flaps
Click to expand...

personal opinion, but i think i would put the H brace in the tail and while back there weld a bushing in where the tailwheel bolt goes. ti firewall can be done yourself, order material and use original as a pattern, gas tank cover- make everything so a cover can be installed but cover with fabric to start with??? just a thought.
 
My opinion, so take it for what it's worth. Unless you're buying the 95hp super cub ridiculously cheap, if you want a super lightweight C90 powered super cub, you'll be better off building an experimental. You'll have more options without having to adhere to the limitations of building a certified plane.

If you do rebuild the plane you're looking at, I wouldn't use the HD gear legs. I think that woukd be overkill, and i think it would be better to bend an axle rather than bend a longeron at the gear fitting.
 
RaisedByWolves said:
I often wonder if a 90 with pstol flaps would be fun. I'd imagine you'd lack the takeoff power.
Click to expand...

While i understand they are wonderful flaps I think they are significantly heavier that traditional flaps. and with the low horse hp im looking at bang for the buck. So those have never been in at least my consideration.
 
wireweinie said:
The original PA18-95's only had a left fuel tank.

Web
Click to expand...

Yes I believe the one I'm looking at only has the one wing tank I was curious if the additional weight further out in the wing would do anything additional. what do you see for fuel burn with your 95? whats your endurance with the 23 Gallon? My plan is withonly an 18 is if i need extra fuel carry some fuel bags land after 3 Hours to stretch answer the call, and fuel up. Im in Ohio so the likelihood ill need more than a 3 hour range over unfriendly terrain is unlikely.
 
1934A said:
My opinion, so take it for what it's worth. Unless you're buying the 95hp super cub ridiculously cheap, if you want a super lightweight C90 powered super cub, you'll be better off building an experimental. You'll have more options without having to adhere to the limitations of building a certified plane.

If you do rebuild the plane you're looking at, I wouldn't use the HD gear legs. I think that would be overkill, and i think it would be better to bend an axle rather than bend a longeron at the gear fitting.
Click to expand...

I Understand the experimental vs certified debate and would not mind a EXP, However I like the idea of a resto, I not exactly sure of the price im going to get yet. This will also be a project for me and my dad so I like the rebuild.

Thanks for the advise on the gear, I've actually been surprised at the number of people that have told bme here and in other places that for a light cub the various additional form stock types and not needed which if they arnt works for me.

I reconsidered the flaps because if im saving weight in the gear dept i could kinda convice myself to put it in the flaps. Also I have a high likelyhood of putting her on floats at some point and i understand thats where you really want them.
 
Eric84 said:
Yes I believe the one I'm looking at only has the one wing tank I was curious if the additional weight further out in the wing would do anything additional. what do you see for fuel burn with your 95? whats your endurance with the 23 Gallon? My plan is with only an 18 is if i need extra fuel carry some fuel bags land after 3 Hours to stretch answer the call, and fuel up. Im in Ohio so the likelihood ill need more than a 3 hour range over unfriendly terrain is unlikely.
Click to expand...

I could feel the difference in fuel levels between the two 18 gallon tanks in my 150 hp Super Cub, I personally would not like a single 23 gallon on one side only, especially as you lose the ability to trim by changing tanks. If you're really chasing weight, the 23 gallon tank is going to add quite some weight; there is the larger tank panel as well. Dakota make nice stuff, what's a bet they use heavier gauge sheet to make those tanks.......


On the flaps, if you're certified, I think you need to put the balanced tail feathers on. Steve Pierce knows the answer to that one I think. They are considerably heavier than the stock PA-18-95 tail. Bigger, but also the elevator spar tube is heavier wall thickness on the balanced elevators.

The lightness thing is simple if you can get your head around it. Resist the urge to add things. :lol:
 
MainlandCub said:
I could feel the difference in fuel levels between the two 18 gallon tanks in my 150 hp Super Cub, I personally would not like a single 23 gallon on one side only, especially as you lose the ability to trim by changing tanks. If you're really chasing weight, the 23 gallon tank is going to add quite some weight; there is the larger tank panel as well. Dakota make nice stuff, what's a bet they use heavier gauge sheet to make those tanks.......


On the flaps, if you're certified, I think you need to put the balanced tail feathers on. Steve Pierce knows the answer to that one I think. They are considerably heavier than the stock PA-18-95 tail. Bigger, but also the elevator spar tube is heavier wall thickness on the balanced elevators.

The lightness thing is simple if you can get your head around it. Resist the urge to add things. :lol:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Mainlandcub yea about the only thing i waffle on is the flaps but im leaning toward not light to an almost extreme. I was watching Hal Stockman and thought hey if that guy who is the poster child for weight savings has flaps, maybe its ok lol but I have the number of sub 800 pound empty in my head and I think im do everything reasonably i can to get there. plus its more added expense, and time to a rebuild to add them.

I kinda like being the underdog :lol:
 
Eric84 said:
Thanks for the input Mainlandcub yea about the only thing i waffle on is the flaps but im leaning toward not light to an almost extreme. I was watching Hal Stockman and thought hey if that guy who is the poster child for weight savings has flaps, maybe its ok lol but I have the number of sub 800 pound empty in my head and I think im do everything reasonably i can to get there. plus its more added expense, and time to a rebuild to add them.

I kinda like being the underdog :lol:
Click to expand...

If it were me, and building experimental, I'd add the flaps. But if it's a certified PA-18-95 I'd leave it as it is.

There's lots of little Cub guys on here who will say they're unnecessary.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Super Cub '95' Weight.
2 3
Replies
72
Views
29K
Eric84
E
Cardiff Kook
Talk to me about empty weight and flight characteristics
Replies
20
Views
8K
frequent_flyer
frequent_flyer
FixedWing
Super Cub component weights
2
Replies
31
Views
10K
glassjet
G
J
PA-18-95 weight loss?
2
Replies
30
Views
19K
Steve Pierce
Steve Pierce
E
Short Takeoff Technique 95HP Super Cub No Flaps ( Light / Heavy )
Replies
17
Views
3K
stewartb
S
Back
Top