Frankenstein Metal Cub

[glassywoder]

Good day folks, new member here hoping to borrow some of your expertise on a truly puzzling airplane. I currently have first dibs on a very unique experimental aircraft which closely resembles, or at one time might have been a cub. Here is what the owner knows:

- Purchased from Dale Parnell's estate, the builder, and supposedly a prolific homebuilder and experimental aircraft guy after he passed from Cancer (family knows nothing). Aircraft was assembled and needed inspection from Canada's MOT
- New owner (current) had it inspected (early 2000s) and flew the gross weight test (2200lbs) with no issues, and received airworthiness documentation
- Appears to be a 'cub' fuselage of some sort (PA-18 or PA-12, maybe PA-11?) with sheet metal riveted on
- Entire bottom of the fuselage has PK screws holding the sheet metal on for removal and inspection at annual
- Owner says he was told the wing is "Zenair inspired", has squared tips with no bows
- Comes with what looks like standard cub gear with bungees, hydraulic brakes and looks like Cessna pedals
- Cabin doors off a Cessna 150
- Engine (IO-346) off a Beechcraft Musketeer, 165hp (2/3rds of a IO-520, supposedly developed into it)
- Looks to me like a custom cowling and Stinson diffusers at the front
-Electric flaps with window motors out of a car as actuators, work pretty good
-No rear controls
-Throttle controls on the left AND right in the front seat, handle can be swapped
-Apparently fantastic performance but we are currently waiting for all the ice to go out so we can fly it. Flies regularly.

Now most people I've spoken to have told me to run far away from this airplane, mainly due to the unknown hodgepodge of parts, and the orphaned engine on the front. While they may be right, I see an opportunity for good performance at a decent price. I am hoping the Supercub.org brain trust can help me deduce the parts which make the whole so I can figure out just how much longevity is in this airplane, and if repairs will be economical/easy when something breaks. I've attached photos for review, and can take more as I coincidentally moved to the town where this airplane is located for a new flying job. Thanks in advance!

 

[Fishsticks]

Looks cool! How heavy is it?

A key detail is missing. Is this thing 10k? Hell yeah! Buy it and fly it. 50k? Mehhh.

Being first in line on a super weird experimental may not be that great if the owner thinks it's made of gold and the rest of us think its made out of something else.... Might be better off letting the owner list it and let the market define how much its worth.

 

[glassywoder]

Looks cool! How heavy is it?

A key detail is missing. Is this thing 10k? Hell yeah! Buy it and fly it. 50k? Mehhh.

Being first in line on a super weird experimental may not be that great if the owner thinks it's made of gold and the rest of us think its made out of something else.... Might be better off letting the owner list it and let the market define how much its worth.

If I remember correctly it was around 1100lbs on the Edo 2000 floats, which to me sounds pretty light for a metalized cub-ish airplane.

Yeah agreed, this is totally a value question. It was up for sale all of last year and didn't move, so I think I can get it for a decent price. The owner is a nice guy and I am planning an offer that would account for it basically needing an IO-360 thrown on the front within the first few years. But that begs the question, will a regular PA-18 motor mount bolt right on, or did the original builder come up with a one-off design. Nothing world-ending there but anything that requires fabrication will mean more money and downtime which I'd like to avoid. I flew 20 hours and drove 11 hours to go see the airplane on my days off, but now that I am based in his town, I am welcome to pop in and poke and prod the thing until I can figure out just what it is. I think he's a bit curious to know too.

 

[DENNY]

Full metal belly was a option on PA 18s and squared off wings are common with different ways to do them. Toe brakes came with some trainers also. The Cessna doors and firewall forward seem to be the big changes from a standard 18. Hard to tell how wide it is if you could measure the cabin width at the rear of the doors and dash that would help identify it. A picture of the extended baggage with that back seat removed also. Over the years several different cub like fuselages could be found so hard to say if this is a factory one or knock off. I have a ideal it might have been a wreck that was rebuilt with handy parts, nothing wrong with that If everything works well, add in the price of firewall forward metal it it should be an easy swap another motor.
DENNY

 

[glassywoder]

Full metal belly was a option on PA 18s and squared off wings are common with different ways to do them. Toe brakes came with some trainers also. The Cessna doors and firewall forward seem to be the big changes from a standard 18. Hard to tell how wide it is if you could measure the cabin width at the rear of the doors and dash that would help identify it. A picture of the extended baggage with that back seat removed also. Over the years several different cub like fuselages could be found so hard to say if this is a factory one or knock off. I have a ideal it might have been a wreck that was rebuilt with handy parts, nothing wrong with that If everything works well, add in the price of firewall forward metal it it should be an easy swap another motor.
DENNY

Thanks for the info Denny. I'll measure the width of the cabin next time I'm there, and see if I can remove some of the belly panels and inspect the tubing for some clues. I haven't heard of any fully
metalized PA-18s or long wing pipers, but I have seen photos of metalized Pacers. I keep seeing the phrase 'top deck' on this forum, and I wonder what the best way would be to figure out what style this cub has. Being able to bolt on standard PA-18 wings would be a huge plus for repairability

 

[skywagon8a]

Back in the 50s and 60s there was a company named Met-Co-Aire which covered wings and fuselages of different airplanes with sheet aluminum. Stinson 108s, Cessna 170 and 140, Pa-22 and as I recall also PA-12s. This could be one of those -12 fuselages. I flew one of the -22s, it rattled like a tin can, probably because the skins weren't stressed.

 

[DENNY]

I think the wings you have are PA 18 wings. So if you carry over you flap controls another set should work fine. While you have the tape measure out see what size flaps and ailerons. The Ailerons are pushed out to the end of the wing which is a excellent mod.
DENNY

 

[skywagon8a]

At the left side of this drawing are the dimensions for the engine mount attachment location on a PA-18. You can use these to compare to see if you could just bolt on a -18 mount.

https://www.supercubproject.com/drawings/pdfs/A3250005.pdf

 

[glassywoder]

I think the wings you have are PA 18 wings. So if you carry over you flap controls another set should work fine. While you have the tape measure out see what size flaps and ailerons. The Ailerons are pushed out to the end of the wing which is a excellent mod.
DENNY

Sounds good, thanks for the insight! I'll be over there in the next few days to size everything up and report back with more photos. The IO-346 is a unique beast that I've been searching for info for over on the BeechAeroClub forum. I guess they were only built for a couple of years to be put in Beech Musketeers and Sierras. Another rabbit hole to explore.

 

[glassywoder]

At the left side of this drawing are the dimensions for the engine mount attachment location on a PA-18. You can use these to compare to see if you could just bolt on a -18 mount.
View attachment 111331

https://www.supercubproject.com/drawings/pdfs/A3250005.pdf

Thanks for the link! The site looks like a great resource. Quite the community here.

 

[aktango58]

One Musketeer around here had that engine, which eventually went bad. As I recall the overhaul price was such it would have been cheaper to buy a different engine, but no STC to allow it. You can put another (different) engine when needed.

While the aluminum does not bother me, it does raise questions- if done well it is durable, but how is it screwed on? tabs welded I hope, but are the welds good, or did they make weak spots on the tubes?

The engine is a big minus for me. The 'hodgepodge' of parts is what experimental is all about. The Stinson line has some of the best flying planes out there, Cessna built many planes so parts can be found, and we know Pipers are great birds. It has been flying, so you know it works!

I would be looking more at the quality of work putting it together, and being sure that attach points of the wings and tail were not drilled out or otherwise made unsafe in the build. Then I would discount for the future engine parts costs. If you can come to an agreement- buy gas and fly the big smile at having a unique aircraft.

I will remind you that Lindbergh flew a 'one off' plane across the Atlantic, and the Wrights did not have certified parts to build their plane.

 

[labrador_cub]

wow I finally know something about this plane now! Ive seen it for sale for what seems like forever and me and my buddy who's plane shopping have talked about it a few times wondering what the story was and the specs, now we know! it looks PA12 ish to me, but all the tell tale clues on this bird are missing or changed so its hard to tell from pictures and no measurements.

 

[glassywoder]

One Musketeer around here had that engine, which eventually went bad. As I recall the overhaul price was such it would have been cheaper to buy a different engine, but no STC to allow it. You can put another (different) engine when needed.

While the aluminum does not bother me, it does raise questions- if done well it is durable, but how is it screwed on? tabs welded I hope, but are the welds good, or did they make weak spots on the tubes?

The engine is a big minus for me. The 'hodgepodge' of parts is what experimental is all about. The Stinson line has some of the best flying planes out there, Cessna built many planes so parts can be found, and we know Pipers are great birds. It has been flying, so you know it works!

I would be looking more at the quality of work putting it together, and being sure that attach points of the wings and tail were not drilled out or otherwise made unsafe in the build. Then I would discount for the future engine parts costs. If you can come to an agreement- buy gas and fly the big smile at having a unique aircraft.

I will remind you that Lindbergh flew a 'one off' plane across the Atlantic, and the Wrights did not have certified parts to build their plane.

All great points, thanks for the info! I'll dig into the structure soon to see if it's on standoffs like the Met-co-aire jobs or if something sketchier is going on. The bottom belly pan seemed to be the only thing held on by PKs when I visited the first time, the rest of the aluminum was secured with pop rivets (to my eye).

Here's a video of it taking off. Hopefully it attaches correctly.

 

[Olibuilt]

Here's a video of it taking off. Hopefully it attaches correctly.

Can't see the video.

 

[glassywoder]

Can't see the video.

Reuploaded, should work now

 

[glassywoder]

For those curious, I went back and took more photos and measurements to dig a little deeper. No flight yet but hopefully we'll go up for a few circuits in a week or so weather permitting. Ran the engine up at full power, seemed to run okay. Made about 2550 RPM static. The fuselage metal is riveted or screwed onto tabs welded onto the tubing, with aluminium reinforcements seen in the pics. The measurements are as follows, and photos attached. If this points to any more clues you guys notice, feel free to chime in!

Ailerons: 10.75" x 88.5"
Flaps: 12" x 98"
Cabin width at rear door post: 28.5"

 

[akwing]

interesting plane, looks well-built...

but I recommend walking away, it's too weird

you couldn't even part it out for 10K

 

[skywagon8a]

interesting plane, looks well-built...

but I recommend walking away, it's too weird

you couldn't even part it out for 10K

The floats alone are worth 10k.

 

[akwing]

The floats alone are worth 10k.

without the floats/skis, you can't part that plane out for more than 10K

the engine is obsolete and holds little value

the wings have been modified to an unknown state

the tail feathers are not likely usable on other aircraft

the fuselage has been modified to the point that its not useful for other applications

there's nothing in the panel worth anything

now...all your left with is a bucket of old parts from random airplanes

 

[skywagon8a]

without the floats/skis, you can't part that plane out for more than 10K

the engine is obsolete and holds little value

the wings have been modified to an unknown state

the tail feathers are not likely usable on other aircraft

the fuselage has been modified to the point that its not useful for other applications

there's nothing in the panel worth anything

now...all your left with is a bucket of old parts from random airplanes

All of what you say is accurate. However, it is experimental and in one flyable piece. If the price makes the buyer happy and he can jump in and fly, then it has value. The engine can be worn out and thrown away, then replace it with something else. The fact that it is a hodge podge of airplane parts just makes it a more economical machine to purchase. Everything doesn't need to sell for more than the purchase price. Look at how fast automobiles depreciate, yet people keep buying them.

 

[akwing]

the plane was listed in March 2024 for 60K, floats, wheels, skis.

wouldn't buy it for half that

 

[Mark_Moyle]

I like it! If it is built using a PA12 fuselage, a motor mount for the O-360 will bolt up. I don’t know if there’s a difference between the O-235 mount and the STC’d O-360 mount for the PA12? You’ll need to verify where the crank flange is ahead of the datum line to insure they’re the same or close for weight and balance. I don’t have a clue what the IO345 weighs and if it’s close to the weight of an O-360? Kind of doubt it. The other thing is the trust line. Did the builder offset the vertical stabilizer to compensate for the P factor and built the motor mount with the thrust line parallel with the fuselage centerline? Or did the builder offset the motor mount to match the PA12 O-235 off set thrust line? You may wind up building a new cowl when repowering with a lycoming? Not hard to do. Fixture to hold the nose bowl centered on the prop flange and build the top and bottom cowl to fit. If were me and the price is right… it is a flying airplane… why not. And remember, things don’t wear out! People just get tired of fixing them.

 

[skywagon8a]

The IO-346 has a dry weight of 269.75# and the O-360 has a range of 256# - 303# depending on model. This engine falls within the same weight range as the O-360.

 

[akwing]

ok, so what would you guys pay for this plane? with floats, wheels and skis

skis are worth 1-2k depending on condition

floats are worth 5-10k depending on condition

it’s (presumably) an airworthy plane, not worth more than 20K and that’s being generous

ballpark price is between 26K and 32K.

personally, I wouldn’t buy it for 15K…if you ding a wing tip or something now you need to source the unknown parts or fabricate it yourself.

 

[skywagon8a]

It's experimental amateur built. You break it, you fix it or throw it away. It matters not what the origin of the parts were.

 

[akwing]

as you can see glassy, no one will put a number on a purchase price for this plane because no one here would buy it any price

buy the plane and you'll be stuck holding the bag just like the current owner is right now..

walk away

 

[glassywoder]

Well gentlemen, I took it out for a circuit. Couple of minor snags, the flap indicator needs a tweak on the cable as it rides up and doesn't indicate past 20 deg. The trim indicator also doesn't move but trim works well. I noticed the fore wing strut on the pilot side had it's lower nut a bit loose and the fore struts had a tiny bit of play in them. The water rudders could be rigged a bit better. Otherwise it flew pretty good. 1340 empty and 2200 gross, I flew it with 3/4 tanks and solo in the front, and tagged along with the owner in the back seat. Glassy day, humid, 23 degrees and no wind to speak of. Still popped off the water in about 12 seconds and minimal room. Climbed out at 60mph and 1100fpm or so. I filmed a bit of the taxi and took some shots of the upper wing attach points but it was a quick in an out. Next step is a prebuy with a qualified mechanic and homebuilder friend of mine. Engine ran well, about 60psi oil pressure throughout, and hot started okay considering the fuel injection system. I think it might be a good contender for my mission. The owner offered to let me join him for the annual and to do a couple of tweaks together to get it just right. Here's the video of the taxi and some pics.

 

[akwing]

welds on exhaust look like trash

welds on top right of motor mount look questionable

as the used car salesman says, there’s an ass for every seat

good luck

 

[glassywoder]

welds on exhaust look like trash

welds on top right of motor mount look questionable

as the used car salesman says, there’s an ass for every seat

good luck

Thanks for looking out, I understand there are some serious cons to this aircraft as well as a number of pros. The other contenders are an 80K Stinson 108-2 with a 470R and a 65k J3 with a C85 stroker. The mission is short lakes (2000ft or so) on hot days at around 1200MSL. I'm have a decent amount of time (4000TT mostly on floats or amphibs), and I am a reformed ultralight pilot so my risk tolerance for hodgepodge aircraft is probably skewed in that direction. The trouble is that while I can turn a wrench, I am way outside my element as far as common practices and standards for aircraft maintenance and repairs. So while repairs on a homebuilt may be easier to make cost-wise, I'll still have to pay someone to do it or guide me through it. My only other cub time is in a 150hp PA-12 or a 18-95 with the C90 and that was a while ago.

I don't think the Stinson will fly slow enough to get in and out of those ponds with much room for error, and I have a feeling that J3 will probably perform the best in that situation but I believe it's got the cotton fabric still on it. That leaves this old girl...thanks to everyone for their thoughts so far. It really helps. Any other ideas, feel free to shoot.

 

[Mark_Moyle]

I’ve seen a few flying home builds a DER had signed off on that had horrible looking welds. One in particular every weld I could see was so fuggly part of me said walk away. But the guy who built it had put allot of time on it and a couple engines. Hadn’t broken yet.. when we landed in Birchwood… oof-tee. He said I hope nobody saw that one. That was a hard landing, wonder how many before and it’s still flyable. Me I’m a perfectionist. If it isn’t right I’ll build or remake the part over and over again until I get it right. Perhaps with this airplane, you may have to tell yourself you’ll get to the time to do it right. What’s that saying, there’s always time enough to do it the second time? On those wing struts my version of doing it right would be to machine a couple bushings with more surface area than the washers provide and bore the bolt hole for a close tolerance fit. That exhaust does look funky.. until you get a chance to replace it…make sure you have copious ventilation in the cockpit just in case it does crack. For your own health insurance to decrease the risk of CO exposure and if you do get to partake in the annual, take along with you a fresh firewall two part sealant kit from PPG like PR195. I’ve seen allot of firewall penetrations that are filled with orange gookumpucky. Never been a fan of that stuff.. allot of those seal jobs if you put a bright light on it you can see the light coming through into the cockpit.

Guess you can figure out which side of the fence I’m on. It’s a flying airplane that can be had a hell of allot less than an experimental cub clone wherein the builder stuck to the plan’s religiously.