Go for it!

I recently bought a newly finished bush plane with hours flown off with a brand new Lycoming 320 ... Its a Murphy Rebel ... Now its time for me to get my pilots license lol

About 100lbs more on the cub since it is lighter, both 2,000lbs gross weight

yessir, that will help.

Actually most people do fly that way. Which is why STOL comps with nothing in the airplane are dumb and don't showcase real world performance.

Flying empty still compares two planes ... full they will both do it faster but the comparisons are still valid ... Everyone knows full you land faster and longer , take off longer ..... and any decent pilot knows this and decides if there is enough makeshift runway ..

I think the latest 4 place B model has the same Ribblet airfoil as this patrol but different gross.

4 place model B is the same wing as Patrol, the 4 place has more reinforcement for the higher gross weight and thicker wing skins

We'll post a video down the road for a summary when we hit 200hrs on it

Should be in there...two lines down in the description

770lbs on the Patrol, Cub is a little more

Awesome. I’m looking at purchasing a aircraft, but I’m limited on Useful Load without paying a King’s Ransom for it.

I don't know of any Patrols that have been around long enough to compare values longterm to a cub

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison of course... A certificated Super Cub (ie; pa-18) is a money-maker in the bush. An experimental Patrol is NOT. This is not a knock on the Patrol whatsoever--but you simply cannot compare the "value" of a certificated aircraft to that of an experimental aircraft, when 1) the market sets the value, and 2) an aircraft such as the SC is *highly* prized in places like AK and Canada. You cannot fly an experimental aircraft in a Part 135 operation in the same manner as one certified under FAR Part 23. So then, you really need to ask yourself what the value of both aircraft is to a non-commercial operator? I don't know how you'd differentiate that though, other than using something like a Javron (or Airframes Alaska, etc) wide-body cub against the Patrol. THAT is the question you really need to ask.

Send us a pair of 31s! :)

@@fly8ma.comflighttraining199 isn't the plane on loan from Bearhawk Aircraft already? There's actually a skilled Patrol pilot with a Bearhawk Patrol on 31s up there in AK. Maybe easier to get him to help out with comparison flights :)

@@whosaidyoucandance There is a couple very old videos of a Patrol with 31's up in Alaska, haven't seen anything in a long time otherwise. I'm sure it was bare bones, as it looked like a cub with its performance. The patrol is a awesome plane, But its hard to beat the Cub for Alaska!! Mainly due to useful load and supply.. If there were as many Patrols as Cub's up there then you would more than likely see closer performance....

...and the fact that you can use the certificated pa-18 in a Part 135 operation, should that be your choice. The term "value" has different meanings to different people. If your intention is to fly the aircraft in a Part 135 operation (or even a Part 91 "sight-seeing" role), then there is simply no choice. But if you're a private owner flying the aircraft for personal, non-commercial, use, then that's where the discussion gets interesting. For instance--go look at a new experimental "wide-body" SC clone once. Whereas you can built a Patrol from quick-build kits for that $150k mark, can you build the same experimental wide-body SC for that money? Possibly--but I've seen several that are listed for well over $200k. For me, after watching this video, I'd take the Patrol--and I'm a CFI, and an A&P. It's roomier (I'm well over 6' tall, and am not as light as I used to be), and I don't need to be an IA in order to license it every year. But these are personal-use observations: I would not be giving dual instruction in my personal aircraft, due to liability concerns. Also, the fact that in 1972 Piper was still using (mainly) 1025 alloy tubing tells me that I will likely have to worry about fatigue at some point: In fact there's an NTSB investigation of recent rudder spar fractures that is sitting on the FAA's desk right now, recommending an AD to swap out the 1025 steel rudder post with one of 4130 steel. Ironically, after 6/3/1974 Piper changed to using 4130 tubing for things like the rudder post--but the SC in this video wouldn't have 4130 in its tail, unless someone has modified it previously...which is quite possible. The other thing people have to consider though is that many aviation insurance companies apparently won't offer FULL hull insurance on experimental aircraft. I've not investigated it myself as I don't have an experimental aircraft. However I've read a number of threads on supercub.org regarding hull coverage ending when the wheels leave the ground. So then if that's the case and there really are significant limitations to what they'll cover, do you really to risk your investment each time you take your experimental aircraft out into the bush if it's not going to be covered? I would definitely want to get that clarified before going the route of an EAB aircraft. But that all notwithstanding, if we restrict ourselves to an apples-to-apples comparison of a private owner (ie; using the aircraft in a non-commercial role), I'd argue that the Patrol stacks up VERY well against the SC-style of aircraft. However for anything other than that mission, especially if you want to fly the SC for hire/charter, you simply cannot make a valid comparison of the "value" of these two aircraft. That's not an endorsement or a condemnation of either plane...just a statement of fact.