How much better?

I haven't posted in a while, so I'll provide some history. I have a nice near-stock 12 with the motor it came out of the factory with in 1946-- O-235 upgraded to a C1. I've put 200-plus hours on it in just over two years. I like the airplane an awful lot when I'm flying solo, but it loses some of its charm when I have two up. With the little motor, it becomes pretty slow and anemic with anyone bigger than a kid in the back. At gross, it gets pretty doggy. If the thing flew as well with an adult in the back as it does solo, I'd keep it forever. For those of you who have experienced both, how much difference does a 150 make in how the airplane flies with a load? Is the upgrade worth the time and money? I live in Georgia, so I'm no bush pilot, but you just can't beat the airplane for the kind of flying I do. I need to decide pretty soon because there's a guy waving a Cardinal in my face....

If you will be attending the E TN fly-in next week you're welcome to fly my PA-12 with a 160 and you can judge for yourself. If you won't be attending, here are my experiences:

Easy to haul very large passengers: obviously the takeoff roll will be a bit longer and the climb rate will be reduced, but it's definitely not what I'd call doggy.

Good cruise speeds. With a Borer prop I cruised around 105 mph. With a c/s prop I cruise around 112mph at 60 - 62% power.

Fuel burn is around 8 gph in cruise.

Eric

OBG--It has been several years since I flew my "little engine". I am VERY happy with my 150. On occasion I have actually used mine as a 3 place(no I don't know what my GW was) but it handled it ok--both on skis and wheels. I could not imagine going back to the 0-235---but then I could NOT imagine giving up the 12 for a dozen cardinals--no matter what engine. Got to fly a friends much modified 180 hp 12---now there is a plane that will "haul the freight". I am also told --the 0-235 is more expensive to OH than the 0-320 or the 0-360. Might also add, my 12 has flaps and VGs--and again I would not want to give either of those mods up. I let a friend with a 135hp 12 fly mine one day---could not wipe the grin off his face---said he could not believe the difference---a month later he had a 160 hp installed :lol: If you are ever in the area come fly with me. Dan

I am not likely to ever buy an old aluminum airplane that lacks internal corrosion control from the factory again. ( A Reims Cardinal would be a score.) I know there are lots of nice examples out there, but I was pretty lucky I came out of my Cardinal experience with a successful sale of the airplane. One of the reasons I bought a Super Cub after the crash was because it will always be rebuild-able, and there will always be some kind of buyer for one.

My wing corrosion related story, featuring a Cardinal RG:
http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=400

I have flown both original and modified 12's in AZ at high DA airports. The small engine with two people and 5gal of fuel, would barely make it around the pattern. I could not put enough fuel in it to get away from the airport with two people. Now with a modified 12, O320, Flaps, VG's big tires, etc. I routinely take myself and another heavy weight into HD airports, full fuel and am quite comfortable with the performance. I often load it up with too much gear and go on lengthy trips. Performance is not an issue. It is of course still not a Super Cub for STOL work, but it is a much better airplane than I am pilot, so I am not one to really test that part of the envelope.

I take my '12 to the Idaho backcountry in the summer, loaded with my camping gear and/or another person. The density altitude is often above 7500' and the plane performs admirably. I wouldn't think of flying there with anything but the larger engine.

Yours would probably be lighter than most with the O-320 conversion, as many of them have flaps, extended baggage, PA-18 gear, higher gross wt. mod., big tires, skylight, long range fuel, etc. The time to add all that stuff would be during recovering.

If you simply switch engines your gross weight will be on order of well over 100 - odd lbs LESS than all of those. That plane would be quite a performer.

I believe most STCs for the conversion will require a PA-18 tail due to the increased weight of the engine. You need the control authority the larger elevator provides.

As for fuel burn, in the local area throttled back the difference from your current engine will be small. On longer trips you'll have the hp to climb high enough that you can lean it to under 8 gph.

Enjoy!

This 12 has the 150 in it and no other mods. lightweight rocket ships. Jim Drometer out of Belle Plaine. There is an STC for this configuration.
(no, he is not taking off with the wing covers on. just keeping the motor warm)

http://www.supercub.org/photopost/data/511/drometer_6.jpg

This 12 has a 150 in it and no other mods (other than a wood 80/44 prop). It's a lightweight rocket ship. Jim Drometer out of Belle Plaine, MN. There is an STC for this configuration.

(No, he is not taking off with the wing covers on. Just keeping the motor warm.)

Thanks to all -- I appreciate the feedback. You all make it hard to want to fly something else. For example, I'd never considered the spam can/corrosion issue before. Do any of you all know if a Tripe's stab and elevators are the same size as a Super Cub's? If they are, it would seem to me to make good sense to buy a wasted PA-22 and steal the tail and engine off of it. Of course, that would probably be way too easy. I'm keeping the 12 for now, even tho there is yet another guy nearby waving a 182 at me for the same price I paid for the 12. My airplane will be down for annual in a couple of months and I plan to talk to my mech about an engine swap during that time. This is probably not the best time to invest big bucks i an old airplane, but like the man said, this ain't no dress rehearsal.

Even if you are grounded for a while I believe the wait is worth it--IMO--- As Cubus Maximus indicated---keep it light !!!Mine weighs in at 1084 which ain't too bad. :lol:

The Pacer and Tri Pacer tail feathers are quite a bit smaller than the PA-18 tail feathers.

MTV

I've been told that size does matter.

(Dunno why she said that!)

Size

Don't worry Nimpo Cub! Its not the size of the Boat that count's, Its the motion of the Ocean...

Bill

tail feathers

I recall that Piper had a factory note about installing balanced tail feathers, and it is not a problem.

I have the Tri Pacer tail on my highly modified 180 PA-12 with extended wings and Dodge tanks, and am very happy with them. They shake a lot less than the long PA-18 ones. I have had every tail configuration with bigger engines, and never felt a lot of difference in stick loads, except this particular tail works nicely. Note: I have VG's including those under the stabilizer and feel that those made a very big difference on elevator authority. For that alone they are worth it.

If you're planning on using auto fuel the 150 is the deal, if not the 160 has a noticeable difference in performance, and may actually use less fuel because of the higher compression. My 180 burns no more than a 150 towing banners because it isn't working as hard. As one contributor to this site, and an occasional flyer of our Super Cruiser says. "It makes gas." The Piper Cub Super Cruiser. Yep that's what it was called. Look at the POH. Piper's best airplane.