PA-12 Vs PA-18

OK Ladies and Gents

We have cussed and dis-cussed the merits of various other airplanes versus the Supercub but I've not seen much comparison between the supercub and the PA-12. I was under the impression that due to the larger volume the PA-12 was becoming the plane of choice up north but someone recently said in a post " it'll never be a SC". Why? Whats wrong with the PA-12? Does it have a different airfoil? If its too heavy, can it be lightened?
Hope to own one or the other someday, whats the best?

Bill

PS...where is Collins, WI?

Boy, tough question. Let's assume you've done all the normal mods to a 12. 150hp, Cub gear, Cub tail, Cub flaps, and a seaplane door. Now the comparison. The 12 is harder to get into, since the seat is forward of the front door post. It's nose heavy, since the engine mount sits further out from the firewall, so it won't go as slow. The angle of incidence is flatter on a 12. A cub's rear spar attach is about an inch lower than a 12's. Modifying that on a 12 is a major deal, and would also require reworking the stabilizer to the new angle. The result of the difference is the 12 won't get off as quick, and along with the long motor mount issue, won't land as short. To rebuild a 12 is an exercise in frustration. There are very few "standard" parts on a 12 these days. They're old airplanes that have been worked, reworked, and reworked again. To work on one is to custom build almost everything. So...........if you modify the hell out of it, and add horsepower, you have an airplane that performs pretty close to a Cub. A stock Cub. Not a modified Cub. But, you get a bigger back seat. Sounds like I'm down on 12's, right? Nope. I own one. I'm in the middle of rebuilding it. Too far in to turn back. Every day, I wish I'd just bought a Cub. I may feel different in a year, because my 12 will be damn nice. Right now, it's just work, money, and time. Not necessarily in that order.
SB

Had a 12, now I have a Cub. The 12 was great...was my first airplane.
Didn't make it in and out as short as a Cub, but then I cruised a little faster and had lotsa room--which was nice in the winter when I was all garbed for the cold. As SB mentioned, the AOI is flatter than on a Cub, that and the weight and balance are the main contributors to the difference in flight characteristics. By "flatter" angle that means the fuselage rides at a higher "deck" angle at lower airspeeds due to this angle, thus drastically reducing visibility over the nose. This can really be a pain when you are coming in to a really short sloped mountain spot or something similar, and you sorta lose sight of any forward reference completely (except maybe a cloud or circling eagle, but that doesn't work too good...). Even with 6" extended Cub gear I sometimes still hit the tailwheel first before stalling. That was the main difference...was a little more challenging, but I could pretty much follow into most Cub strips when light.
Andy

This is like beating your favorite dog! You love the dog, wouldn't trade it, but darn it, it sure makes you mad some times and you feel compelled to kick it!

1000+ posts should cover you as to the PA12! As Andy said with a lot of practice, you can get a PA12 in where 99.9% of supercubs can go! It will never be as comfortable doing so! The wing (airfoil) is the same. The tail has to work much harder to keep the wing flying at high AOA. (thus the control pressures increase as you get into the flare! I believe that there may well be enough interest in the future (Americans are getting bigger) and accustomed to taking more crap with them when they leave home, to warrant the design changes to emulate the same angle of incidence on the "new" 12 fuselage as is the SC. at the same time changing the angle of the tail.

Most of us (me included) did not understand the significance of this when they started the "PA12 rebuild".

For most of you, the characteristic differences would not be a deterant! You will love the size of the PA12, there is a lot of benifits, like working on the 0320 is a breeze with the longer motor mount (Kenmore STC)

The custom part issue is not really a challenge cause of the number of STC's that are available utilizing PA18 substitute parts.

Hope this summary helps--either is a great plane flown by a competent pilot!

Enjoy,

Tim

PA-18 vs PA-12

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately as well. What Stewart says is right on as far as a PA-12 rebuild. Things to add to his comment are; The PA-12 is more comfortable if you're going to regularly haul 3 people then a PA-18 with the third seat conversion, especially if it's over an hour flight. If all you normally take is yourself and one passanger, there is no question that a PA-18 is the way to go. But, there is another way that I'm seriously thinking about for my next project and that is the PMA'ed Wide Body (4" wider) PA-18 Airframes Inc. fuselage. My PA-18 measures 24 1/4" wide in the back seat. The Wide Body measures 28 1/4" wide in the back seat. The PA-12/14 is 31" on the rear seat, rear cross tube (the fuselage has more flair then a PA-18). The Wide body is 2 3/4" narrower in the back seat then the PA-12/14. With a full width rear seat in the Wide Body, I could fit my wife and youngest boy or just both boys and not be too pinched for space. The only thing that needs to happen is the approval of floats and 180hp conversion for the Wide Body fuselage and I think it'd be a go. Dog-gone-it, building up these Cubs is worse then a drug addiction. I'm not even finished with the one I'm on and already planning the next one....Crash

I'm on the other side of the rebuild coin, I currently have a 12 that is for the most part stock. It has what I consider the minimun upgrades that a person should have (0-320, balanced tail, 3200 tail wheel, cleaveland brakes and 26 inches of rubber). It has the short engine mount (univair) that I feel has helped with the cg and visibility issues. Although maintenace on the back side of the motor can get you cussing. An above average airplane in it's state. With this I wanted more, better and nicer.

I have for the past couple of years struggled with the 18 vs 12 and found exactly what the other guy's said. Now I have a new 12 project going and it is heavily modded. Will it out perform a 18? Never! Will I need that additional performance that the 18 offers? Not likley. I'm a competant pilot I feel, and I'm comfortable at off airport excursions but compared to alot of our freinds here I'm a green idiot. I know my abilities and don't put myself into situations that make me nervous. I fly to relax and that includes my ass cheecks.

I like the differences that the 12 offers, I don't envision a 18 in my future. Ultimate performance isn't everthing. Heck even my old corvette has the small block in it instead of the big bore,,,,but it's got air conditioning. Must boil down to the comfort factor.

Take Care. Scott.

To add, The PA12 has the advantage of a lot of extra "physical space", I can easily put a 5gallon can on each side, in front of the rear seat, and then use the extended baggage and the baggage area for baggage. The forward CG empty is not a problem if you put your "survival gear in the extended baggage. The advantage is you can load the plane aft and still be within limits.

I love the elbow room. As for two in the back, Baywatch models and small children, or two under 150lb kids works fine.

If $'s not a problem, I believe Crash you have a great combination- A PA18 and a PA14, Only better would be a 206 on floats, and a PA18/180.

I am satisfied for now with the PA12 modified and fun to fly!

Tim

okay, so there i was......
looking at this BEAUTIFUL(!!!) rebuild on this pa-12 the other day. i mean this thing had it all, 0-320, flaps, cleavelands, scott 3200, electric fuel gauges. and dressed up for d'ball!. looking this thing over and complimenting the restoration at every turn. finally i had to ask...
i mean, you know... i thought i was pretty knowledgeable about these cub things . but hey, those ailerons, man those just aren't the same as my super cub. are they. no, they weren't.
so, i offer, well it's the same wing, right?. no the owner replies.
so here i am researching this here on the website , and no, it is the same airfoil. but what about those ailerons? anybody???
i am sure there is a really good reference for things like this out there somewhere. somebody got some directions for me here.

The PA12 and 14 have a different airfoiled aileron. It has more of a point on the leading edge. I have only flown one PA12 and it had real long wings but was very light and responsive on the ailerons. Somewhere here I have read a little more about them but this is what I know.

This is the story I have gotten from several people in the know. The PA-12 was developed from the J-5 and the H-1. The J-5 has the same angle of incidence on the wing as the J-3. After the war Piper wanted to cash in on all the people they thought would buy personal aircraft. They wanted a faster airplane so they lessened the angle of incidence on the wing and went to 4130 tubing on the fuselage. Because of the changes a new type certificate was issued. I do know that PA-12 fuselages have been changed to the J-5 angle of incidence. I have an original 12 fuselage, uncut and undamaged if someone wants to play with a project.

The PA12 was only produce in 26-47. With the wing mounting points left alone, utilizing the modified 0290 (long mount) beefed up to accept an 0320 the PA-12 becomes extremely nose heavy when empty (The Balanced PA-12 Stabilizer helps one mantain Elevator control "longer, however one has to raise the nose further to get to full stall (assumming that you have added stock length PA-18 flaps. The challenges get even more complex when you add 31" tires to get the angle of attack at lift off closer to that of a PA-18? One way to get that is to us 6" extended PA-18 gear (assuming you can get a FAA inspector to sign off on the combination of STC that it takes to make it work? Also there is very little 4130 in a stock PA12 fuselage (unless they have been repaired--as most have) Another challenge is it takes modification to the Fuselage trusses at the station behind the wing attach fittings to make the Cathedral ceiling truss liken to a PA-12 and thus opening up the baggage area to accomodate a flat floor. One thing I have seen done is for folks to remove the bungee attach reinforcement when they modify the gear to be like a PA-18. the 1" cross tube is the strong arm of the PA-12 fuselage!! Charlie Center has some good STC's for a PA-12 tha make it very much like a PA-18 in performance. That said, I have owned modified (The Freightliner) to be a pretty good plane for hualing a load and getting in/out at about 98% of the places I could comfortably take a PA18.

My not so humble opinion is that a PA12 will never be a PA12 and you will never haul as much crap around inside a PA18. The 12 makes a good family float plane, pretty good bush plane and if you dump 100k in it you can make it perform pretty good as well.

for the Money you would be better off building a wide bodied Cub, 180hp engine, Dakota Wings (might ad slats) and license it experimental and have fun.

Tim

I was driving around the airport here the other day and saw what I thought was a PA-12 with stock wings and a PA-18 tail but it was really a J-5. I am curious what are the differences between the 12's and the J-5's? good, bad or anything?

Robert

So Tim, when are you going to get the kit and start building your own experimental?? Good to see you back on the forum. Tried to e-mail you a while back and it didn't go thru. You change e-mail addresses?

Bob

There are several things, which Tim knows, will lighten the nose on an 0-320 modified PA-12. He may not remember, but many of the ideas were his ca. 3 years ago when I phoned him. The -12 I have now has a light weight starter, the rear mounted generator, and a wooden prop (prop exchange removed 17 lbs right off the nose). It absolutely is not nose heavy...but yes, it took some additional mod$$$$. I love the extra space, don't have half the trouble getting into it as a -18, and you can load an entire cheer-leading squad in the back seat. A -18 with these mods and recent rebuild would be $100k or more.... -12's are still a bargain for what they are. Ralph

J-5 and PA-12 are the same AOI.

I got the drawings and compared them.

The J-5 does give you the mount that is parallel to the firewall, like a J3.

Hopefully I will have my J-5 done by next winter. Working a little bit on it everyday. I need to buy a new camera so I can get some pics.

Tim

A 12 set up correctly is not nose heavy. It requires a short mount (moves the motor back THREE inches), light weight starter and alternator, rear mounted oil cooler and leaving the lightweight battery in the back. It is correct that you can load them heavy aft and a side benefit of the aft loading is that the plane will fly faster. I too believe that leaving in the old landing system support when making the 18 gear conversion make the frame extremely strong. You can carry two people in the back seat and still have your baggage legally and you cannot do that in a cub. In addition a 18 has a gross weight increase to 1935 when on floats and a cub does not. All things being equal a 18 will beat a 12 off the ground by 50 feet and land 50 shorter. In my opinion there is only one cub better than a 12 and that is a 14 and only one better float plane than a 206 and that would be a 185, so Crash only has it half right. But the half he has is the harder half to find. :lol:

You guys are all right and confirms what we (cub owners know) that there isn't a perfect plane that will do it all. I agree the wood prop is a great way to get the weight off the nose, but where I "used" to fly it wouldn't last 25 landings/takeoffs. As for weight and balance, it is truly a dance around the center of gravity and resultant center of lift. I got a lot of success in getting my 12 off the ground faster by taking some of the wash out of the wings and I also increased the flap angle, one can also remount the stab on the same plane as a 18 and get some more forward trim without slowing the plane down at cruise (assuming we are still working with a long mount? the best mod I saw on a stock wing was the VG's and the best fuselage mod is 18gear fittings and 6" extended gear (leaving the reinforcing in the fuselage)

As for weight, all the beefing up adds weight and most 12s that I saw highl modified were about 1300lbs empty, (defeating most of the performance gain)

I had for years a 185 that I flew into a lot of "cub only strips". Aside from the beating it took doing that (not worth it now on a plane worth nearly 300k? I could haul a lot of dog food in/out as long as the ground was firm enough to support the weight) I will take a 206 any day for ease of loading and for carrying long cargo!

I think Crash has close to as perfect a setup as one can have (the 180 and the PA14 and a PA18)

You guys be safe chasing those bears as they start popping out of the dens next month (darn I miss this time of year on skiis) or for that matter any flying!!!! (Bob, guess I better get serious and start a project before they won't let me fly anymore (legally)

Tim

Don't forget about the J4E wing that jump started the J5C then the PA-12........Cub Evolution LOL

I think one point worth making is that the PA 12 was made in 1946 and 1947. The PA 11/18 was made from 1947 to some time around 1994. As I understand it, CC is still sort of making them. If you go all the way back to the E-2, I guess the Piper Cub has been in more or less continuous production for over 3/4 of a century. Can you think of any other contrivance that has done that well?

Could there be a reason for that longevity?

Harley Davidson!!!

Tim

Well said, Bob. How about the C-130 Hercules. First flight in 54 and still in production.

Bill

The prototype Bonanza made its first flight on December 22, 1945. Still in production today. Not quite a 3/4 century but close.

Thanks Fourtysix12. I could not remember which had the longer production run.

Bill

So why did the PA 12 last only two years? You cannot tell me the Pacer was a better airplane - it would have replaced the Cub, too, and the Pacer/Tri-Pacer was gone by 1960, I think. And there is no way I will ever accept an argument for the Cherokee!

The model 35 Bonanza has been out of production for a number of years. The only Bonanza currently in production is the model 36, a very different machine in many ways.

MTV

The narrow 18 body is better if you are looking down all day doing surveys. The 12 was a pain in the neck, (litterly) to look out and see stuff.

For me, I'll take the cheerleaders, (college age of course) and baywatch models and you can have the 12 :lol: :lol: (instructions included, right?)

jay cross said:

This is the story I have gotten from several people in the know. The PA-12 was developed from the J-5 and the H-1. The J-5 has the same angle of incidence on the wing as the J-3. After the war Piper wanted to cash in on all the people they thought would buy personal aircraft. They wanted a faster airplane so they lessened the angle of incidence on the wing and went to 4130 tubing on the fuselage. Because of the changes a new type certificate was issued. I do know that PA-12 fuselages have been changed to the J-5 angle of incidence. I have an original 12 fuselage, uncut and undamaged if someone wants to play with a project.

Click to expand...

My wife and I are kind of looking around for a project. I sent you a PM with more detail, but we "might" be interested.

The Model 1911A is still going strong.

If you have been fortunate to own or fly a Charly Center built 180 hp PA-12 you may be surprised how well a PA-12 can perform. Starting with a new fuselage a Crosswinds built PA-12 will cost about the same as having someone build a new wide body PA-18-180. The two planes will be equal in weight. The Crosswinds PA-12 will have all the best Alaskan PA-18 and PA-12 modifications. It will have better aileron effectiveness. Both will have PA-18 elevator and trim. The Crosswinds PA-12 will be safer in an accident due to the duel door post design that integrates with the overhead X brace to create a safety cage for the cockpit. In addition the vertical door post strengthen the lower longerons and help prevent the tubing attached to lower motor mounts from collapsing and pinning the pilots legs. The Crosswinds PA-12 will have a bigger baggage area and the design of the Crosswinds Square door makes loading much easier and will allow you to load big bulky materials including 55 gallon drums. You also get a certified three place aircraft. Cruise speed will be noticeable faster and take-off will be within a couple feet. With the Atlee folding and sliding adjustable PA-18 seat mounted correctly you will have good visibility. I understand there will be very nice example of a Crosswinds built PA-12 on outside static display at the Alaska Airmens trade show.

If you own one or know someone that does, could they post an "Actual empty weight" also the weight and balance data along with "take off Landing performance. I have seen Charlies machines and they are well done.

I would love for an owner of a similarly equipped wide bodied cub post there data to make comparison.

I think the argument is that you have to do much less to a SC to get the performance that you do with a PA 12.

To get either to perform as a really true "utility" machine it is best done equipped Experimental IMNSHO.

Tim