New PA-14?...

[FlipFlop]

This was in today's Avweb...

A HOLIDAY WISH LIST -- ONE AIRPLANE FACTORY, PLEASE: A couple of old
friends in Tower, Minn., are ready to try to raise a couple of million
dollars to realize their dream. Larry Gish, 53, and Ray Jacobsen, 59,
designed and built an airplane based on the 1940s-era Piper PA-14
Cruiser, a compact four-passenger taildragger with nifty short-field
performance, and named it Pegasus. "The response we got from other
pilots to our airplane was incredible," Gish told the Associated Press.
"It seemed like everyone wanted me to build one for them." Jacobsen
told the AP that Pegasus has more power and better handling than the
original Piper design. The prototype cruises at about 120 mph.
Certification by the FAA is expected to take a couple of years, and the
base price is projected to be $130,000. If there is any magic left in
the season, may it cascade down upon all those endeavors that would
bring us shiny new airplanes.

[Clay Hammond]

yeah I saw that too, but I don't know about the name. Pegasus???? It just don't jive well.

[hottshot]

WOW $ 130,000.00 I still cant afford one even if I rent my kid out!!!

[Gary Reeves]

Has anyone had enough time in a PA 14 to know how they fly. I seem to remember an article - perhaps in "WaterFlying" that claimed it flies just like a SC. If so, I sure would like to get the wife where I could see her.

Gary

[Stan]

I went from a Cessna 172 to a SuperCub just so I could put the wife in the back seat !

[Steve Pierce]

Aern't you afraid she'll woop ya in the back of the head. If ya got one of those PA14 at least you could see it comin'.

Steve

[PA12driver]

The 14 does fly like a supercub as long as you don't need to see out both sides? They make a greeeeeat float plane and get about!

There has been a few upgraded to 180 hp. (I would take a new one for $130k when My kids start to take care of me like I would like to become accustomed!

Tim

[Gary Reeves]

I see in Northern Pilot that the name of the company is Pegasus, but the PA-14 ish aircraft would be called a Bush Hawk. "Very early planning stages" sounds almost as iffy as $1.7 M for the next two years.

I'd guess I'll keep looking for a PA-14 for my Florida floatplane. I'd never give up the SC in Alaska.

Gary

[wingnut]

Howdy all,
Just a note on the 14's I think John Mitchell also holds the TC for the pa 14 also.He purchased it along with the J-5.12's and the 14 and the 14"L.He is now called Cub Parts and is at the Vernon BC airport.
250-549-1612 give him a call and maybe you can have a new one certified.
Don Whitehair

[PA12driver]

Not to throw in some confusion but the Bushhawk is already a "Canadian" certified airplane? www.foundair.com

Also on parade at the 2002 AOPA expo The NP article states that the first U.S. production aircraft was delivered to the State of Alaska's Office of Aircraft Services.

Looks like quite a machine!

much bigger then the PA14, more on the lines of a 185/ beaver?

Tim

[Gary Reeves]

Sorry, I was thinking of the Bushhawk, when I was reading Northern Pilot.

It says that Pegasus will call the new PA-14 a Super Hawk.

The Bush hawk does look good, but seems to be a better version of an aircraft that could not quite compete with a 206 or a 185.

Gary

[PA12driver]

Gary,

Having had both the 206 and the 185, I would agree they "were" both awesome planes. The problem is the inflated cost to manufacture and maintain the old ones and or the new ones (206)

The cost of the new Bush Hawk is attractive?

Tim

[Crash]

Portage Creek: In response to your question about the differences between a PA-14 and a PA-18 as far as performance. I have flown the same PA-18 160hp for 11 years. I finished an extensive rebuild on a PA-14 with a 160 hp engine and a short mount. So far in the time I have in the plane I can say this. My PA-14 would give any 160hp PA-18 a run for its money as far as getting off, slow flight or landing short. I really like my PA-14, on floats or wheels. One nice thing about it is your passanger's weight is up next to you, under the CG, so it's not as effected by their additional weight. It's too bad the economic times were bad when it came out and Piper only built 237 of them. I think there are only 90 left on the FAA registration and only about 55 of those are in flying condition. Take care! Crash

[Dave Calkins]

Hey Guys!

Careful with the PA-12 TC owner. I heard that numerous people have been ripped off, that numerous airframes have been stamped "unairworthy" by the feds, and other 'BAD' stories.

I'm not sure if you're speaking of the same guys or not. Just beware.

An experimental PA-14 "family cruiser" would be a nice a/c for a particular mission. Pretty sure that it won't fill the shoes of a light -18, though.

I've been flying a 150 HP -14 for the last 8 or so years. My Dad and a buddy partnered in it, and neither flies it much. I've kept it going while I build up my PA-11. On the PA-14, overhauled engine and recovered wings and tail a few years back. W&B states 1158 pounds on big tires. 3 inch extended Cub gear (external bungees) 82-41 McCauley prop, stock round tip wings, BLR VG's, -18 tail feathers, Pawnee tailspring. I'm not sure to believe the 1158 pounds on the W&B. Will actually weigh it soon.

Maybe Crash's 160 in his 11 year PA-18 has been getting tired, or the 150 in my -14 never broke in. (doubtful, as the 150 spins the 82-41 Borer 2350 static and 2625 full throttle cruise). Or Crash has helium ping pong balls in his -14 wings. The latest 160 HP PA-18 I put together will absolutely smoke my -14 in TO, landing, climb, braking, etc., etc.. Everything except cruise speed and ability to put big stuff inside the cabin.

Most of us think part of the landing and TO performance of the -18 over the -12 and -14 is about the wing incidence, and some of it from the weight differences.

I love the -14, but the 160 -18 will do lots better in the extreme areas. Maybe Crash's -14 is really light and has a long wing and flap, etc., etc.

I'm not going for a pissin' match here, just want to be realistic about a/c performance in order to maintain some credibility on this site.

Crash? anything else to add? Some planes just fly better than others, also. Maybe my -14 is a dog, or your Cub was a dog and your -14 is exceptional. I HAVE flown an exceptional 180 PA-12 that will do up most 160 -18's.

Yes, the cabin size of the -14 is great, but you can't see both mains at the same time, like an -18. Also, having a passenger in the back of an -18 actually decreases the amount of stabilizing DOWNFORCE required of the hor. stab., therefore decreasing the amount of total weight the WING has to carry. This is actually an advantage over the -14 carrying 2 bodies at the CG and requiring more nose-up trim ( + stabilizer downforce).

Dave. if you need a 4-place SuperCub, the PA-14 is about the only choice.

[JimC]

David, you might wan't to double check the statement, " Also, having a passenger in the back of an -18 actually decreases the amount of stabilizing DOWNFORCE required of the hor. stab., therefore decreasing the amount of total weight the WING has to carry".

While it is true that adding the back seat passenger reduces the required tail download, the passenger is close enough to the cg that the moment difference doesn't reduce the tail download by the full weight of the passenger -- so the total weight the wing has to carry DOES increase with the addition of the passenger. It just doesn't increase by the full weight of the passenger.
All the best,
JimC

[Dave Calkins]

Jim, of course I meant "putting a passenger in the back of the -18 as opposed to putting him in the lap of the pilot, or next to the pilot of the -14". This should be understood in the context of the above remarks by both Crash and me.

Thanks, Dave.

[Crash]

Dave I know what you mean as far as some planes flying like dogs and others of the same model fly great. The PA-12 and 14 seem to fall into this catagory more then the PA-18 because of the extensive mods they've occured over the years. A guy on the strip had a PA-12 and used to get clear to the far end with a passanger and after 2000' bearly clear the trees at the my end. It made me nervous as I built my 14 up to think it would be such a turkey. It's not. I took it all the way down, replaced 80% of the tubing and built it up with one thing one my mind "light weight" and performance. I live at the end of my neighborhood strip, I always roll up to the end of the strip and go full throttle. My neighbor's hanger is about 100-120' down the strip and my 18 would break ground around at his hanger and start climbing out. My PA-14 breaks ground the same place and climbs out steeper then the PA-18 and will hold 70 mph and 1100 FPM up to and beyond 5000'. Will your's do that? Bring your 14 out and we can fly them aginst each other. I think you'd be suprised. P.S. The guys that have flown with me (in their PA-18's) will tell you my old PA-18 was no slouch either. Crash

[Dave Calkins]

Thanks Crash, I'll come see you. I guess I've got a standing coffee invitation at Graybill's that I haven't taken them up on.

I'm on LW 2500's with 8.00x6's and 3" ext. gear, so no contest there.
Maybe we'll see with the 30" streaks.

I guess I should maybe bring the 160 -18 I completed a couple summers ago. 31's and 3" ext....a real goer.

Dave.

[Crash]

PA-14 performance: Dave, I loaded up my wife, 14 year old boy and 11 year old boy in the PA-14 and went flying today. Dropped into the Big Lake strip to do some take offs and landings. With fuel (30 gal.) and four people on board my load was over 720# (the wife wouldn't let me post her weight). Had my boy count cones out one side and the wife out the other just to double check. It took 2 1/2 cones to get off from a stop and 2 1/2 cones for a full stop landing. I did it 5 times without much varience. I went back and measured the distance between the firts three sets of runway cones. The first set is 188' apart, the second is 173 ' apart and the third set is 190' apart. I estimate the distance for take off and landing with this load at 455' give or take a few feet. Crash

[Steve Pierce]

I want one.

[AkPA/18]

Hi Crash,
I know it was just an honest mistake but the lights at Big Lake are 200 ft apart. That is still excellent performance for that load. Thought you might want to know.

[Dave Calkins]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I can compete after all.

Just joking, but I really did get a laugh out of that. Thanks AK-18!

Dave.

[AkPA/18]

Heck David---I had an 18 that might not have performed as well as Crash's 14. It will now after we worked out the bugs.

[Crash]

The ones on the east end look a lot closer then 200'. I'll take a tape and measure them. Crash

[AkPA/18]

Dave--just curious. Are the revised performance numbers for Crashes TO and landings close to what you are getting from your 14. I still thought that was pretty respectable. And TO in 100-120 feet on his home strip is fantastic imo.

[JimC]

Hi, Dave. That wasn't the part of your statement that I was suggesting that you might want to doublecheck. It was this, " therefore decreasing the amount of total weight the WING has to carry". There is no way that adding a passenger anywhere in the cabin is going to reduce the required tail download enough to reduce the wingloading by more than the weight of the added passenger. However, if you're just relocating a passenger who's already there, then moving him aftward will decrease the amount of total weight the WING has to carry.
JimC

[Dave Calkins]

Bingo Jim, your last sentence. I'm talking -18 with the second body behind the CG VS. -14 with the second body at the CG.

Was my statement so nonsensical??

Today on RWY 15 at Merrill field, no wind, full 19 gallons per side, One 185 pounder in the left seat, 78 pounds of winter survival gear behind the aft bench, LW-2500 wheel skis, 800x 6 tires, tailski, 3" extended Cub gear. Off in 2 lights.

I went to play in the snow up high since there's not much down low.

I'm not complaining, the a/c is a blast. It's just that a lighter one would be even more fun.


http://www.supercub.org/upload/ski142.jpg
http://www.supercub.org/upload/ski143.jpg

The curved track is the downhill takeoff run, the straight track is the uphill to flat landing area. Both are about 200 feet. The uphill helps to slow the a/c on touchdown, the downhill helps to get it up to takeoff speed.

[Crash]

Correction: I was flying around today and stopped by The Big Lake strip and measured the distance between the cones. They varied in distance from 170' to 190' and I corrected my previous post to reflect this mistake. Sorry guys, I wasn't trying to B.S. anyone, they just looked a lot closer together when looking down the runway. My eye for lengths must be not be calibrated. Now I have to go correct a lie I've been telling the wife for years. Take care! Crash

P.S. By myself and 20 gallons of fuel I was off "at" or shortly after the first cone (188') five times.

[Dave Calkins]

Crash, thanks for the clarification.

I'd love to see your fresh PA-14.

Happy flying.

Dave.

[piperfan]

I heard a rumor that the Wag Aero Sportsman 2+2 was coppied off of the PA-14. Anyone know if this is true? And if so, has anyone built/flown one?

I've always like the PA-14 and would love to see one in person, so if anyone out there that has one and is located anywhere near Philadelphia, I would like to have a look see, if possible.

P.S. - is it true that we have had more snow this winter than Anchorage?!?

[AkPA/18]

Dave---thanks for the performance info...I think you and Crash need to go head to head. Do it at Big Lake so I can check it out. Too bad we don't have any competitions up here anymore. That is fun stuff and would be great to see Jerry and Denny's planes up here. I haven't seen them yet and Texas isn't going to happen for me. Pics were great---looks like you had a good day.
Crash---never thought you were BSing at all. And my post was not meant to be neg slam at all. Thanks for the update on the lengths. Looks like I have to get my tape out next time. We were working on a 180 cub about two weeks ago and doing some takeoff and landing tests on that east end. We just assumed that the lights would be at the even hundred feet. We put one guy in between the lights at what we thought was halfway(100ft) and estimated from there. Wrong again. Well I hope the wife took the news OK.

[Ursa Major]

Piperfan,

If you have any snow at all, you probably have more than Anchorage. The Iditarod ceremonial start is tomorrow morning. The city has had to haul in snow for it to begin. There has been so little snow in South Central Alaska that the actual race re start is in Fairbanks instead of the MatSu valley.

I'm ready to take the skis off - haven't been able to use them this winter.

[Cub Kid]

I heard a rumor that the Wag Aero Sportsman 2+2 was coppied off of the PA-14. Anyone know if this is true? And if so, has anyone built/flown one?


Piperfan,

Yes the 2+2 is more or less a copy of the 14, there were supposedly some changes but I can't remember what they (most have a bigger engine than the stock 14, which I think came with a 115...although most have also been subsequently upgraded) I flew one about a year ago, was thinking of buying...flew really nice but the workmanship was pretty shoddy, so I walked away. Reminded me a lot of a 12 (flying it, not the crappy workmanship) but was nice to have two seats up front (especially with a lady up there as it is pretty cozy), and the turtledeck was nice too. All in all i would say they could be a pretty nice airplane...I am still thinking about building one of my own.

Bill

[heavylift]

I was looking at the PA-14 pictures on a previous post and noticed what looks like Vortex generators on the flaps. Did I see right?

[PA12Tray]

My dad built one in 1984 at that time they called it the Chuby Cuby. Yes it is basically a PA-14, he modified the kit and built the plane as a copy of the 14 with a few extras that an experimental is allowed. The plane has a 180 hp engine, super cub wings, and performs very well. I'm sure he'd be glad to talk to anyone interested in building one, if you e-mail me I'll give you his contact numbers.

[Jerry Burr]

HI Heavy Lifter. This is what we found concerning your question. Vortex Generators on a PA-18 flap. If the V.G.?s are mounted within ½ inch of the leading edge on top of the flap, then they provide some benefit at flap deflections of less than 20deg. There are two reasons for this. First, the airflow through a flap slot is very weak, and high energy flow is required over a V.G. in order to create a vortex. The second is that a flap, much like the 35-B airfoil stalls around 18deg. Beyond that point it creates drag and promotes circulation around the wing. V.G.?s mounted anyplace on the flap with a flap deflection of more than 30deg have proven to be of no value. V.G.?s were also tested on all three sides of the false spar with dismal results. Ironically the aileron slot flows higher velocity air than the flap slot does at high AOA?s. :) Jerry.

[heavylift]

Thanks for the info Jerry. But I'm curious to know if, during your testing(with the flap VG's) you found any fluttering of the tail at full flaps.Or for that matter flutter of the flaps. Were there any negative effects.
J.C. :bang

[Jerry Burr]

Hi J.C. I don't remember ever having flap flutter. I get some tail shake at 10deg of flaps, at full power and best angle speed. I'm not sure what you mean by negative effects. There were not enough positive effects, so I bagged the idea of V.G.'s on the flaps. Around here a mod has to pay it's own way or it's history. :D Jerry.

[PA12driver]

Jerry, You might add to this comment? But I have found that any flap setting on a cub (over 50 degrees) tends to cause a heightened amount of 'flutter'/vibration of the tail surfaces? Negative, no, more flap effect yes? Now the question I have? What effect does the larger area of the "hendrix's square tail have on this?

Thanks,

Tim

PS: I have a 'stock PA18 tail on a PA12 with Stock PA18 flaps

[Fortysix12]

Sorry, I was thinking of the Bushhawk, when I was reading Northern Pilot.

It says that Pegasus will call the new PA-14 a Super Hawk.

The Bush hawk does look good, but seems to be a better version of an aircraft that could not quite compete with a 206 or a 185.

Gary How about the "BUSHMASTER"

[FlipFlop]

Gary[/quote] How about the "BUSHMASTER"[/quote]

http://www.eventpromotionsusa.com/airfair/bushmaster.htm

Burns too much fuel...

[Jerry Burr]

Hi Tim. I don't know about the large tailfeathers. I have never needed them so haven't tested them. Take Care. Jerry.