• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • There is no better time to show your support for SuperCub.Org than during our annual calendar campaign! All the details are HERE

Flying the Super 18

Crash,

I'm not sure what it is you object to. Is it the price or the slotted wing? It seems to me that the Super 18 is nothing more than a type certificate for the assembly of parts that most Cub rebuilds are using anyway. Dakota wings, Airframes Inc fuselage, etc. The new jackscrew and higher gross? Non issues to me. I don't imagine I'd enjoy how a 2300 or 2400# Cub would perform, slots or not.

If I were to start another project today it'd be a widebody 180hp supercub with Dakota PA-12 wings, which I can buy in kit form from Airframes Inc. I would not opt for slots. That's about the only thing that would differentiate my project from the plane Mr. Warren flew. The bigger difference between them, and the only reason I'd do such a project after completing my 12, would be that I'd go experimental. I have no desire for a certified Super 18 and wouldn't pay a nickel for a TC, so the $185K thing is out the window. It'll be interesting to see whether the market will support another certified Supercub. I don't think I'm the only guy that would prefer the amateur homebuilt category. Perhaps every commercial operator will jump at the chance to get his hands on a widebody slotted wing certified Cub, although they already have that option via STC'd assemblies. I haven't seen any takers. The commercial guys I know are still trying to figure out how to make their old Cubs lighter. Not for increased payload, either. Gravity rules the ridges.

I'm unsure who the the intended market is for Super 18 certified airplane. Still, I like the parties involved with the Super 18 and I wish them success.

SB
 
Stewart, I've got no problems with the Super 18, I was just repeating the same question you had about the real benifit of the slotted wing.

If it won't get you off the ground quicker or land shorter with the same load as a stock Cub, then why go throught all the work, extra expense and added weight to have the slotted wing?

I've heard all the comments over the years about how they slow turn and fly with the nose pointed straight up but the real deal for most pilots working a Cub is getting into and out of tight spots.

I am also confused about the claimed empty weight of the Super 18. They claim it has a 2300 lb GW with a useful load of 1100 lbs giving you the impression it only weights 1200 lbs empty. The two Super 18's I've seen weighed 1320 and 1327 lbs.

My thoughts on the Super 18 is it was meant to "one up" Cub Crafters Ranger being wide body with slotted wings. It may pull a few sales away from the Ranger for the guys looking for all the "goodies" and have $185K to spend on a fabric covered, 2 place, 100 mph airplane.

If it were my call, I'd also produce a standard body, stock wing, O-320, 2000 lb GW exact copy of a Piper PA-18 at $149K price tag and see how it sells. I bet it would out sell the Super 18 by a margin of 10 to 1. It's like what Sam said about the Rans S-7 "its all the plane I need for what I do".

Take care!

Crash
 
flying the super 18

for 150k i'd rather have a 185 or an older 180 plus an older cub for that kind of money
 
Crash and StewartB,
It lands much shorter, and it lands shorter with much less skill required (antithesis of the Husky that lands short requiring a lot of skill).
Although the take off distance is nearly the same, the angle of climb is significantly greater with the slotted wing ( doesn't matter if you never have to clear an obstacle).
After you start loading it up the difference becomes greater. At 2100 lbs it feels like the straight wing at 1800 lbs.
The tight turns are great in canyons. The added safety is really nice. How many people did you know, that are no longer with us because of accidents. Quite a few I knew would still be here if they had that wing.

The wing definitely stalls. If you go into the stall lightly loaded and gentle, it just recovers itself with no effort( about 23 mph Chopper ASI and 28 mph GPS). If you load it heavy (2000 lbs ) and go into it abruptly, it stalls like a straight wing with VG's ,loaded lightly going into a stall very benign, easily recovered at about 25 ASI and 30 mph GPS .
 
loop,

Thanks for the response. Good answers.

How much of the new-found slow speed report is a result of the pitot being blanked by the increased AOA? I know the length of time between your old configuration and the new rebuild was probably too long for an accurate "feel" comparison. Maybe you and Crash should go do some GPS verified flight tests. Other than the widebody and the slots, your planes are pretty similar. I don't mean this as a challenge, but a serious opportunity to validate what is and what isn't. I'd be a very interested observer.

Did you say 2100#? Oh oh! :eek:

SB
 
Stewart, maybe loop, you and I should go over to Birchwood on the gravel strip and do some real comparisons between loop's Super 18 and my stock configured 180 hp PA-18. With a tape measure we could clear up what everyone is looking for.

We could do a few "side by side" take offs on the big runway to get take off performance. It would be nice if we had a radar gun for "slow fight on short final" to get real landing numbers and not just how good each other's brakes or accuracy are.

On slow final if the slot flys 10 mph slower then a stock wing before dropping out of the air then they might be worth it.

Loop, are you game? Crash
 
Crash,
I'm still on floats, how are you configured?

StewartB,
Even with the time lapse, I find myself feeling the difference in a variety of situations. What still amazes me is the times when I go outside the envelope and am still more stable than when I was inside the envelope with the straight wing. The difference between the two isn't subtle.
 
Let's keep it civil. Regardless of the outcome you both have pretty fantastic airplanes. This isn't an episode of Pinks. I really am interested. To make it really fair we should get one pilot to fly both planes. Maybe Terry? Heck, there's probably no real way to keep it scientific, so it may as well be fun. I think I can get my hands on a radar gun.

Loop, you're not drydocking it for the winter, are you? Slower landings should be a big advantage on skis. My floats should come off in a few days. I'm excited to get back on tires. And skis.

Stewart
 
Loop, I am on wheels with the PA-18. Terry and I are going to Africa on Thursday so it might have to wait until you're off floats and we get back from hunting.

Stewart; No contention on my part, altough I do come off more aggressive then I mean to on a lot of my posts, sorry for that.

We're all good friends here just looking for data. If the slot works just a little better then I'll stick with stock wings. If they work considerabley better then I'll switch my wings out for slots, no big deal.

Look back at my earlier posts on an O-320 vs an O-360. I dissed the heck out of an O-360 PA-18 until I was convinced it was better "for what" I did and built up an O-360 Cub. It's better in some ways but not all. As they say, "there's no free lunch".

Take care. Crash
 
StewartB,
If you are still on floats, we should compare the light 12 against the heavy 18. I understand your plane is lighter than my scale challenged version.
 
I'm still enjoying that you dissed my spamcan for all those years, and now you OWN ONE! It's all good.

Have fun in Africa. Be safe.

Stewart
 
I looked at the WB. 1260 empty weight with a 13.1 EWCG. Wings are certified for 2415 lbs. If they can get the fuselage to pass the certification test it will be good for 2400 lbs.

What I noticed is how much better it climbs. Like any mod you have to decide if its what you want.

If you guys are going to compare performance you should both use the same prop for comparision and not the uncertified P235 prop like some guys are running.

I think this cub was designed to be a legal load hauler, not to win take off contest at fly ins against 160 hp non elec cubs.

Is there a market for it? I dont know, but it sure was fun to fly.
 
ground loop said:
StewartB,
If you are still on floats, we should compare the light 12 against the heavy 18. I understand your plane is lighter than my scale challenged version.

That would be fun. Unfortunately, as I wrote earlier, my equipment is more capable than I am. I'm not sure I'd do the 12's reputation a service. If your new plane outperforms the old one from a video I remember, I'd get spanked. But I'd be happy to embarrass myself. I'm good at it. Besides, the empty weight of an airplane is kinda meaningless. My airplane in flight includes one lard-ass pilot. That may be the great equalizer.

Stewart
 
Its a 84 in prop. Dont know the series but it didnt look like a 235. They have a 84 and 82 in prop for it but want to use the 84 if it will pass the noise test.
 
Crash beat me to it. I have been following this post and this aircraft since I looked at it during Oshkosh. I was also wondering how the price had jumped 30K in such a short time. ?????
 
Is that base price w/o all the goodies?
How many different outfits are marketing this plane?
The price makes me wish that I would be able to part with my plane, but I have been enjoying it so much that it would take some serious bad events to ever part with it. It has been a dream come true.
 
Gound loop,
If you look at my previous post on this subject there is a link to how it is equipt for the 155K price. I copied it nearly word for word off their flyer I picked up while at Oshkosh.
Keith
 
WWhunter,
I was looking at the Yakima version with the $185 price and then the optional features available for more$$$. Is the Northern Piper version still at $155?
 
The 84" prop has me wondering how they got it past McCauley and Lycoming who both put the kybosh on it with the FAA after some 30+ PA-18-180's already had field approvals to run it. A McCauley rep told me they had some concerns about bad harmonics if run at 1700 rpm for extended periods on an O-360.

Anyone know if the 2300 lbs GW is approved on any floats STC'd for a PA-18 like the Baumann 2150A's? This would give life to this great float and give Wip some competition.

I've also heard that common off the shelf PMA'd Piper PA-18 parts are approved to use on the Super 18, true or not true?

Thanks!

Crash
 
Does the vibration issue apply to all 84 in props or just the P235 series?
 
kase said:
Does the vibration issue apply to all 84 in props or just the P235 series?

We were talking about the P235. Does the A200 come in 84"? Crash
 
I wonder what the weight difference is between the 84" A200 and the 84" MT constant speed set up . It would probably be close.
Anyone have any theories of why the constant speed is not catching on with the builders?
 
The MT constant speed prop is advertised at 45 lbs.

The A200 in 82/42 is 45 lbs with 1/2" mounting bolts.

The P235 in 84/42 is 37 lbs with 1/2" mounting bolts.

The GM 82/42 Borer prop is 33 lbs with 3/8" (O-320) mounting bolts.

My biggest complaint about an O-360 in a Super Cub is the lack of good (legal) props availible. The legal ones (forget wood, they don't work in the bush) add 12 lbs to the beak of the plane, just where you don't want it or shake like crazy.

The P235 is a great prop. It's light and raps up fast like a borer prop but is no longer getting signed off by the FAA. :cry: Crash
 
Crash said:
The MT constant speed prop is advertised at 45 lbs.

That's its "empty weight", but you have to add the govenor, and if you don't have the heavier engine that takes a bolt on govenor, you have to add some other gadgetry, so it pushes the weight up a bit. I like the MT prop on my cub a lot, but if I never went more than 50 miles from home I would probably forego it.

The other thing people get confused on is that the MT prop is a WOODEN prop, with a fancy coating on it. It is NOT a true "composite" prop - at least in my opinion. It was interesting to see the MT that had hit the pavement that they had at the airmen's show last year. It sure gave me some additional confidence.

sj
 
Steve, what kind of cruise are you getting on Bushwheels running 2450 RPM? Take a shot of your panel and post it or Dave will beat you up with math calculations saying it can't be done. :lol: Crash
 
Crash,

The picture would do no good since my ASI is totally whacked. I flight plan 100kts (115mph) with 31" tires, belly pod, extended wings, etc. I have done some GPS tests in many directions and calm winds and that is about all she has. That is running 2400rpm at 24" of MP at low levels. If I push it to 25" mp I can eeek out another few knots - but at the cost of a lot more fuel than the knots are worth. About Cessna 172 speed is where I am at.

With the amphibs on I am lucky to see 80kts (92mph) - usually less and a head wind seems way worse on amphibs, but I suspect that is because I am going so slow already.

sj
 
Back
Top