The Value of Super Cubs

[Peter]

Let me start by saying this is not a solicitation to buy a Super Cub (or any other aircraft).

Given a budget of $75k; how much Super Cub will that buy? What I mean is, will that get a SC that is in good shape with reasonable life left in fabric, airframe and engine? Lets say reasonable time is 10 years remaining before needing a rebuild/recover (assuming I don't have to say something clever like "oak tree your in my way").

Thanks

Peter

 

[3689A]

I think it would! my Cub is freshly rebuilt from the spinner to the tail wheel, new fuselage. lycon 160, with some mods and if i was going to sell i would ask 100k, I wouldn't get that, more realistically would be 90k. so i think you could buy a decent cub at that price

 

[Luke_theDrifter]

I agree. It seems like there is a realist price range, where Cubs are being sold and bought on a regular basis, for around 70k...give or take a few bucks. In my opinion you can buy a NICE Cub and stay within your budget, you'll be getting a Cub that has a fairly recent rebuild from spinner-to-tail wheel. This will be a machine you can fly for the next 10 or so years (depending on how many hours you fly) and expect to get over 1,000 hours w/ regular maintenance & annuals.

To help assist you getting a firm pulse on the market I know of a Cub that will be on the market within the next month or so.
This Cub had plans to be completely rebuilt, however part way through the rebuild process the plans changes. The wings, complete gear assembly, complete tail assembly, and firewall forward (strong Lycon 160) are either new or rebuilt within the last 12 months with about 130 hours total time. The fuselage is is a little rough and will need rebuilt sometime in the future, the plane is in annual and flying right now, performs excellent! This plane will sell for around $64k, give or take a few bucks. After the fuselage is rebuilt, which will cost around $20-25, it could be listed, like many others that are NOT selling, for over $100k. There seems to be a very limited market for buyers that will pay $100k and over. Around that $70-75 range you can get a NICE buggy :lol:

 

[fadec]

I think that in today's market you could find a wonderful Aircraft for 75K. I think that I got a great deal on my Super Cub, but at the same time My 182M has taken a beating on what it is worth

 

[Fortysix12]

I would think it would also buy you an experimental that would go twenty years before needing anything. I remember a couple of years ago at Sentimental J some one was selling a recently built Daytona version for 75K nicely equipt. and it was a 180. When you buy- patients.

 

[Calvin Brandt]

You may want to call Howard Kron in Clara City, Mn. He is rebuilding one for resale. 320-367-2584. It may be in your price range.

 

[alaskadrifter]

I am curious why many people think that their 95hp Cubs are worth over 50k. I do not think I have seen one sold for more than that.

 

[Steve Pierce]

Maybe because new Legend Cubs sell for $90K plus. I have seen some 90 hp SCs listed for $50K plus but they didn't look worth it nor to I think they brought that much. On the flip side of that I hope my L18C will be worth at least $50K when I get done restoring it. Of course a Cessna 150 will probably bring more than that by the time I am finished.

 

[Gary Reeves]

Take a look at the "classified" area of the site. There is one PA-12 listed that will give you an idea what you can get in that price range.

GR

 

[Calvin Brandt]

I am very familar with the Cubrafters Sportcub and there Topcub. The sport cub now is called the S2 which has many improvements over the first ones. It is nowhere close to being like the original cub but is far superior to it with new technology. (This may be an objective opinion.) Consider this. New certified aircraft, wider fuselage, Tall and Big guys can fit in this plane, new 100Hp engine, airbags, Redesigned and far stronger wings and fuselage, Larger payloads, 4130 tubing, 4 in none exhaust system gets about 8 more Hp. Real nice instrument panel. (2) 12 gallon Fuel tanks in the wings, Its a new certified aircraft but basic airplane sells for no less than $128,000. The Top cub sells for about $185,000. Expensive as hell but I believe they are the best cubs out there if you can afford them. New airplanes are just plane expensive no matter where you buy them from.

Personally if I had only $70,000 to spend on one airplane it would probably be a new Eurofox sold by Rob Rollision. They are now starting to bring these airplanes to the USA market as a taildragger.

http://www.eurofox-usa.com/taildragger.htm.

It is a side by side seating with 100 HP Rotec 912. It is a very nice design and basic design sells for around $70,000. The side by side seating is desirable for a lot of people including myself and some day I may add this plane to my hanger.

 

[Steve Pierce]

http://www.eurofox-usa.com/taildragger.htm

 

[bob turner]

If I could have only one aircraft, it would be a Cub. If it were to be a Super Cub, it would be a lightweight 160 with cruise prop and Grove brakes. I suspect the optimum for those just wanting fun would be the PA 11.

If I were wealthy and could have two, the second would be an IFR C-180 with center stack - preferably a 1956 model.

 

[Sam Beckett]

Be patient..I paid $82,500 for my last Super Cub...And now I own a Rans S-7S..
And I am loving every minute of flying it!!!

Deals are going to keep getting better..

Sam


8)

 

[ag-pilot]

S7

Sam, A week or so ago I flew a Rans S7 With the 4 stroke ski-doo engine and a 3 blade composite prop. I like how it performed with just me in it but even the owner agreed that it would last all of about 2 hr the way we use our cubs and it would be sitting on its belly with the gear somewhere behind it. This one had already had a gear incident. I did like the way it was so quiet you could watch the thing 1/4 mile away flying at cruise power and not hear it and it got off the ground and would climb ok with just me in it although none of us thought it got off any shorter than a good cub.

All in all it is a nice plane if your going to fly off grass runways or smooth beaches but needs real gear if your going to follow a working cub.
Dave

 

[Sam Beckett]

Aggie,
Once again you are speaking in pure ignorance first what year airplane did you fly? and why did he have a Ski-Doo engine in it?..The 2000 forward airplanes all have 100hp Rotax engines unless some moron wants to change the plan and throw something else in it...One a Rans with a Ski-do engine which is not a Rans approved or normal engine.. is a probably poorly modified version as that is not how they are designed..The Gear by the way is very strong and will do just about everything a Super Cub will do except haul elk..Which I do not do.
I do not know some of you speak out of context on a Rans S-7S when you have not even flown one...Or know the construction..My Rans flys in all aspects very comparable with my Super Cub in takeoff, landing and beats it in cruise.
My Super Cub would climb out on a warm day (100) and full fuel and 2 BIG! guys.. at about 800fpm, So does the Rans S7S.

Cruise, you are right the Rans does not cruise out like a Super Cub..The Rans is Faster by 15mph.
Aggie,
The guy that states he ripped the gear off his must have been landing on pretty crappy condition and his piloting skills must have been less than adequet. I have landed my Rans on Sand Bars, Desert floors with Sage brush, Dirt Roads and pretty much anwhere I have wanted to take it.
Granted I have not landed on " Big Rocks " as I never would do that in my Super either, it is to tough on too many components of any airplane.
My Rans S7S has the same Spring gear set up as many spring gear airplanes of old or new. It has proven to be very strong..Ask any RV Pilot they all have the same set up.
I have a 2 blade composite prop as some Super Cubs have.
The Rotax performs flawlessly and the airplane will loop and roll all day long...Do you do that in a Super Cub?
But Dave I will give you one thing...A Rans does not Support the OPEC Nations to the degree your Super Cub does as when I am Cruising at 115mph my fuel burn is 4.25GPH of Premium Auto Fuel.....
The early models with the early engines were weak in their loafers..Just like the Early Supers with 95hp..
Let me know what town you are in and I will find a Rans guy and you can go fly with him as there are a lot of Ex Super Cub guys amongst us.

Sam


8)

 

[WWhunter]

No offense Sam, but I think he was refering to the Rotax engine. Ski-doos use Rotax engines....just not the same engine type as in the Rans...same brand though and I think that is all he meant.
WW

 

[mvivion]

I think the "defenders of the marque" are maybe getting just a bit carried away with the hype here....

Calvin: The new S-2 Sport Cub has better useful load than a stock J-3? I kind of doubt that. It's a new CERTIFIED aircraft? Nope--approved under LSA, not the same as a CERTIFIED aircraft, even CAR 3. The wings are "far stronger"?? Any documentation of this?

The S-2 looks like a great little airplane, and I have no doubt it has many improvements over a stock J-3 or PA=11. But, the price is TWICE ++- some what a really good J-3 would bring, and TWICE what a PA-11 would. No doubt this little airplane is a jewel, but as you noted--prices are astronomical.

The Top Cub is the "best cub out there if you have the money"?? Let's see-NO ski approval. Only ONE float approval (Super Cub has seven or eight). Heavy (I've flown two, both over 1300 pounds). Burn lots of gas (O-360). Virtually NO STC'd modifications available (we had to field approve a windshield defroster, and we were lucky our FSDO still approves stuff like this!!). No detectable HINT of cabin heat (neither did the original Super Cub, but there are dozens of mods to fix it in THAT airplane). Company is so busy cranking out Sport Cubs that they arent' improving the Top Cub. I've flown a number of Super Cubs that will outperform the Top Cub. The Top Cub is a nice airplane, it's new, and there is no doubt that the useful load of the Top Cub is really nice--you just don't have to worry about weight at all. That said, I've flown a 1030 pound 160 hp Super Cub with a Wip 2000 pound GW kit. It had THE SAME useful load as the Top Cub, but at 300 pounds lighter, would outperform the TC on 20 less hp any day. Less weight means less landing loads in the backcountry as well, and likely longer lifespan of the fuselage.

Again, the Top Cub is a VERY NICE new airplane. It is not, however, really in a league with a well rebuilt, modified Super Cub. Of course, a BRAND NEW REBUILT SC is going to cost you well over a $100 K as well....

As to the Rans: There is a fellow in Fairbanks with an S-7 who uses it for a lot of back country flying. He's had it for several years, and runs it on skis in winter, Goodyear 26 in tires in summer. I was always impressed with that little airplane and its performance.

I think the new Rotax engines are a far cry from a "Ski Doo" engine, though that is indeed their genesis. I've flown a few of them, and they do quite well.

I sure wouldn't overlook a RANS S-7 if one is looking at LSA, and want to consider Experimental. The primary down side I see is useful load, but that's true of any airplane in this range.

MTV

 

[Taledrger]

Just for the record Rotax is owned by Bombardier. Bombardier started out as a snowmobile manufacture (Ski Doo) and their engine division has always been called Rotax. SkiDoo and Rotax have always been synonymous so to call it a SkiDoo motor is completely justified. Now calling it a snowmobile motor is a stretch.

:lol:

 

[Sam Beckett]

Oh, I understand now...I was wondering why my buddy with an Aztec always calls it a Piper Cub..
I forgot they were all owned by Piper...



Sam


8)

 

[Steve Pierce]

The old guys around here called Cherokees metal Cubs. To them everything Piper made was a Cub. Too bad they are no longer with us. They saw and did a lot.

 

[Taledrger]

Oh, I understand now...I was wondering why my buddy with an Aztec always calls it a Piper Cub..
I forgot they were all owned by Piper...



Sam


8)

I keep trying to like you Sam but you just keep making it harder and harder..... Not that a guy like you would really care.

 

[behindpropellers]

I am very familar with the Cubrafters Sportcub and there Topcub. The sport cub now is called the S2 which has many improvements over the first ones. It is nowhere close to being like the original cub but is far superior to it with new technology. (This may be an objective opinion.) Consider this. New certified aircraft, wider fuselage, Tall and Big guys can fit in this plane, new 100Hp engine, airbags, Redesigned and far stronger wings and fuselage, Larger payloads, 4130 tubing, 4 in none exhaust system gets about 8 more Hp. Real nice instrument panel. (2) 12 gallon Fuel tanks in the wings, Its a new certified aircraft but basic airplane sells for no less than $128,000. The Top cub sells for about $185,000. Expensive as hell but I believe they are the best cubs out there if you can afford them. New airplanes are just plane expensive no matter where you buy them from.

.

Man...after reading this I fee like it is an advertisement. A piper product will always be number one in my eyes, only because you can legally repair them as well as get parts from a number of different suppliers. Seems to me the only people buying a CC super cub are the city slickers taking them for sunday breakfast or the gov.

 

[Sam Beckett]

Bob D,
To know me is to love me...Not sure why I have a goofy rap on here..Check with someone who really knows me, in person that is....I am a nice guy who has been in aviation a long time!
Steve Pierce, Ruidoso Ron and Dave..
Anyway you will not have to worry to much longer as I am slowly riding into the sunset. It is just a matter of a short time that I will be totally out of site......


Sam

8)

 

[mvivion]

Guys---Lighten the Hell up, por favor..... Heck, I thought the Aztec comment was funny. The Aztec has more in common with the Super Cub than most would suspect--Steel tube fuselage, same engine--but two of them, etc.....

And, Behind, what government agency is buying Top Cubs?? I understand that the Air Force Academy has a few for glider tugs, but who else?

And, finally, Bombardier now insists on the VERY French pronunciation of their name, thank you very much. I still call em Bombardier, as in the guy who drops the bombs. They do make a LOT of good stuff, though.....not many bombs.

MTV

 

[Cub junkie]

The internet is a place where wit and dry humor are not detectable and it's easy to come across as a jerk. I'm blaming that on Al Gore since he invented the internet. And its the Apache that has two cub engines, the Aztec has six bangers. Both of those airplanes share the same airfoil with the cub I'm told.

 

[Taledrger]

Mike
I would have found some humor in the remark if I thought it was intended that way but I don't think it was. More like sarcasm.

Sam
I was trying to explain that for many years everything made by Bomb-bar-d-a was branded SkiDoo and some of us old guys still use the term.
Calling some one IGNORANT because you don't understand that is wrong. Calling a Rotax a SkiDoo is like calling an Aztec a Piper.

As far as your S7 is concerned, if I took as much offense to the Husky bashing that goes on here as you do your airplane I would have been gone along time ago.

 

[mvivion]

Dang it junkie--I never could get those tribes sorted out in my mind.....Maybe I need to sue somebody about it. It's a wonder that Piper hasn't got sued lately, course the "New Piper" now names their aircraft stuff like Meridian, etc....

And, as to the engine--depends on what mods you have on your Cub, actually....

MTV

 

[Cub junkie]

I have posted on here somewhere that I had a ride in a "ski doo" powered airplane and it was a smooth engine. I do question the fuel burn, seems to good to be true. Van's Aircraft are using the "ski doo" on their new RV 12 LSA and report a higher fuel burn than published. Van is well known in the industry for truth in advertising. You're right MTV, I forgot about those "steroid monsters" that have been built.

 

[Clyde and Susan]

I have met Sam and his posting style is like they are not the same person. His posts can get under your skin but in person he seems like a nice guy. That's my observation. ...Clyde

 

[harneymaki]

Well the Apache is really based off the twin Stinson prototype when Piper bought Stinson. So should the Apache really be referred to as the twin 108-3-PA-18??????????????

When Piper Aircraft purchased the Stinson Division of Consolidated Aircraft in late 1948, included with the Stinson sale were the drawings for a new twin engine airplane designed by Stinson. Piper went on to build this airplane, initially naming it the "Twin Stinson." This photograph shows the Prototype Twin Stinson shortly after its first flight in March 1952. Registered N1953A, with Piper serial number 23-01. This airplane was a true milestone aircraft for Piper. It was the the aircraft which took Piper from the manufacture of tube and fabric "puddle jumpers," into the world of all metal business aviation. This airplane was later marketed by Piper as the "Apache," first of Piper's American Indian named products. Later it evolved into the definitive Piper Aztec