Crash,
As I recall, the 18 foot takeoff at GULKANA was by an experimental, not by a Super Cub. And, if it was the airplane I think it was (long time ago, in a land far away

), it could never have been certified due to several mods that wouldn't even be close to being legal. And, the airplane likely did not have more than five or ten gallons of gas aboard. How realistic is that?
Oh, yeah, and it was blowing that day, with big gusts. JW Musgrove got underway with a Single Otter that same day, if I recall, with several passengers and enough gas to go to Tok, in just 88 feet. Blew out a rear window in the tail bounce. Have I got the day right?
In those deals, it's the luck of the gust, the timing, the skill and feel of the pilot AND the airplane that makes the distance. To suggest a Super Cub can take off in 18 feet is simply ridiculous, and misleading without qualification. Heck, in enough wind, I can get airborne without an airplane 8) .
My point wasn't picking on Super Cubs, but rather on the fact that a lot of older airplanes have "issues", and performance is a lot harder to predict, compared to newer ones. My airplane is WAAAYYYYY slower than nearly everyone else's of the type. Why? Eccentrics, in part, but what else? WHo knows? It just is. But it'll get off the ground like a, well--Super Cub, almost

.
As I noted, the CC Top Cub seems to be also really consistent. Buy one of those, and you will get predictable performance. Not so with many Super Cubs, which for the most part nowadays are "Homebuilt" airplanes in everything but certification.
And THAT, to me is the single biggest advantage of the Cub--flexibility to make it what you want from it, NOT whether it takes 150 or 176 feet to get airborne in a 25 knot gusty wind.
I watched a Husky take off in less than ten feet once. It was the prototype, with 200 hp, the factory test pilot flying, and enough gas to go several hundred miles.
Oh, yeah, the wind was on the beak at over 35 knots. And, there were other witnesses, by the way.
So what does that prove? In that situation, I was a lot more impressed with the fact that he could taxi the dang thing than I was with the takeoff run.
Anyway, whether a plane can take off or land in ten feet more or less isn't my prime criteria for selecting an airplane. There are so many other functions of an airplane that takeoff performance is only one of many that I'd consider.
My contention has been for a long time that takeoff distance of a Cub and Husky on wheels is pretty close, all things as equal as you can make them. And, in a lot of situations, the Cub might win.
Where the Husky shines is on floats or skis and with a load, though.
And, that's where takeoff performance really matters more, in my experience. But in the several seaplane STOL contests I've seen, there were no Huskys entered either.
I know of a ski "fly off", with three Huskys, two Cubs and a Scout. The conditions were very deep, untracked snow and it was cold. All airplanes were pretty much full of gas, one person up. All except the Husky I was flying at the time were on straight skis--that Husky was on Rosti-Fernandez 8001 retractable wheel skis. Pilots switched from one to the other aircraft, so it wasn't just one pilot in one airplane.
The finish was like this:
1) Husky, straight skis, with 80 inch Hartzell prop.
2) Husky, retractable wheel skis, with MTV 15 prop.
3) Husky, stock prop, straight skis
4) Super Cub, 160, straight skis
5) Super Cub, 160, straight skis
6) Scout, straight skis.
I don't know the distances, but apparently the finish order was consistent.
No wind conditions, by the way. These results were reported to me by a couple of the participants--I wasn't there, so take them for what they are--rumor

.
MTV