• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

installing flaps on a PA-18 95

It's a 105 cub so not exactly a great loss of a classic if it's converted. On the other hand it is a massive expense and would be better undertaken at time of rebuild rather than with a covered wing and fuselage. Like others have said, there are brackets that need to be welded into the fuselage as well as false spar replacement, rib modification, and adding hangers to the spar. It's no small job and I doubt 40 hours would cover it.

Really, it would be best to talk to the mechanic who you would have do the conversion to see what it would take or even if they are comfortable doing it. Asking strangers on the internet what your mechanic should charge you is a good way to be on bad terms with a good mechanic.
 
By the time you get them installed at Dan's with parts you need, even with brackets. I am guessing you will be north
Of $10k. Then when you get to the STOL contest some kid
"With out flaps" that knows how to properly 'side-slip' his will likely easily have numbers lower than yours.........
As Denny and Reid have already told you the T/O difference with 90hp is negligible. Why would you bother
To alter a perfectly good original Cub for nothing. This is like taking an original Winchester rifle that's 125 years old and boring holes in the frame because "you think" adding a reciever sight will 'make it better'...... If the Cub has survived for nearly 80 years unmolested, what on earth would ever make you think 'flaps' would make it better.???
Good Luck with it, but your headed down the wrong road. E
I’ve read this opinion here a number of times, but I remember when Matt Piatt was getting the shortest landings at Valdez with a light flapped PA-11.
 
All of the Super Cub fuselages I have ever worked on from 1952 model -95s , 125s, 135s and 150 had all the flap pulley brackets welded in the fuselage. Figured it must have been easier on the production line. It is easy to modify the ribs, make a little jig, cut the tails off and rivet the angle to the rib that the false spar attaches to. Personally I wish people would leave the 90 hp Super Cubs alone. They are great flying airplanes for their intended mission but people want a big engine Super Cub and think they are saving money by converting one.
 
All of the Super Cub fuselages I have ever worked on from 1952 model -95s , 125s, 135s and 150 had all the flap pulley brackets welded in the fuselage. Figured it must have been easier on the production line. It is easy to modify the ribs, make a little jig, cut the tails off and rivet the angle to the rib that the false spar attaches to. Personally I wish people would leave the 90 hp Super Cubs alone. They are great flying airplanes for their intended mission but people want a big engine Super Cub and think they are saving money by converting one.
Did you fly Tal’s after the flap conversion?
 
Did you fly Tal’s after the flap conversion?
Yes, only Cub I ever flew that the nose dropped so far when the stall broke. He put the 150 hp Super Cub tail feathers on as well. Tal did not believe in VGs. Paul had them installed on one of his airplanes and they didn't work. Of course when I started asking questions it was at a rebuild so who knows what all was changed.
 
I put flaps on a PA-11. Added about 20#. Lowered stall 4 mph, but takeoff as noted above wasn't worth the time and cost due to drag and low power (90) to blow the flapped portion of the wing. I could land shorter that the takeoff even with flaps up or popped. Probably helped some on floats loaded if 12* was deployed during takeoff due to lower AOA. Any more and the drag slowed the water run. I'd lengthen the wing before I'd add flaps to that configuration.

Edit: Prior to flaps the PA-11 had Ferguson droop tips (now CC?) and longer wings. When we redid the wings they were returned to stock tips. I preferred the look of the stock wings.

Were I to do that plane again I would have left the wings longer w/o flaps but with VG's. The long wings help on floats with low power. I didn't do lots of tight turning in turbulence with that plane so aileron effectiveness was a secondary consideration vs lift.
Gary
 
Last edited:
I have been surprised how slow i have to get my New Experimental 11 before it starts to sink good....I have balanced feathers and trim tab.....once I hit 55 though she starts to come down ok....I'm putting my VGs on this week, will report the difference. For this reason....I was thinking flaps would be nice a few times....but I've owned Taylorcrafts for 30+ years, so I'm used to slipping. lol. I think the PA18-95 is pretty much the same as my 11 minus the spars coming together above my head, It's been awhile since I flew an 18-95, but I remember it feeling similar to what I built.....I'd keep a 95 stock I guess.....but Soy talks about a 105 Cub with an O-320.....Probably a good candidate for flaps there.
 
Flaps enhance slow flight no doubt. More nose down attitude at same airspeed. When it stalls mid-to late 30's depending on weight flying at 50 all day is a realistic event. I liked the balanced elevators on my PA-11 (required with flap STC) but they do add pounds.

I had a flight review on floats that included some harsh tones when I set the downwind at 50 IAS then 45 on final. I had to demonstrate the stall x 1.3 to convince the examiner my sink rate plus airspeed was barely acceptable. Ok...I did give him 55 as a compromise to pass.

The -95 would be at about 1500 GW floats vs 1350 -11 so maybe add little for safety.

Gary
 
Considering performance on mine & how easily it slips, for the life of me I can’t understand why anyone would pollute a 95 Special with flaps.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Considering performance on mine & how easily it slips, for the life of me I can’t understand why anyone would pollute a 95 Special with flaps

I agree 100%. I can't imagine flaps adding any performance to mine at all. I can only see them adding weight and complexity, neither of which I need. I agree with the Wright Brothers - "Simplicate, and build in lightness"!
 
Frank O,Cause they don't understand the art of sideslipping , it's gotten lost over the years from folks learning to fly in C-150's / Cherokees......... If they witness an old Cub pilot sideslipping right to the ground at minimal airspeed onlyTo kick it out 6" above the ground , the flap fella's will have already dailed 911. So folks are looking for the easy way, and flaps will help that. Why not just learn how to fly the Cub.............. Good question. Was recently at a STOL show a week ago. A Guy there with his old J3 , his approaches were easily down in Carbon Cub approach speed range. NO FLAPS. He don't need em!
 
Last edited:
First, I totally agree that adding flaps to a PA-18-95 is not a good idea, and I for one would never consider doing that, regardless of cost.

That said, landing is only half the performance program. You also have to take off. Slips don't help much there. What counts there, however, is the lightest possible basic weight. So, again, flaps add considerable weight to these light little planes, and that extra weight may just offset most of the performance gain you might get on takeoff from having flaps.

Maybe. But, too many people think everything is about short landings. A short landing to a place you can't takeoff is an ugly conundrum.

And, I too love kicking a Cub into a slip to a landing.....big fun.

MTV
 
Frank O,Cause they don't understand the art of sideslipping , it's gotten lost over the years from folks learning to fly in C-150's / Cherokees......... If they witness an old Cub pilot sideslipping right to the ground at minimal airspeed onlyTo kick it out 6" above the ground , the flap fella's will have already dailed 911. So folks are looking for the easy way, and flaps will help that. Why not just learn how to fly the Cub.............. Good question. Was recently at a STOL show a week ago. A Guy there with his old J3 , his approaches were easily down in Carbon Cub approach speed range. NO FLAPS. He don't need em!


I bet he has a few more hours in the no flap cub than the CC drivers.
 
I bet he has a few more hours in the no flap cub than the CC drivers.

I love to slip. I have no problem slipping my PA-28 full rudder all the way until just before runway contact. I have never needed to slip my CC FX-3 to landing. Two reasons. It comes down like a rock on the backside of the power curve so slips not needed. Also it pisses fuel out of the tank filler vents unless it is close to empty.
 
Maybe it's just me but I slip so I can see where I'm landing. Easier to see out the side windows than the front when you're real slow with no flaps.

As a side benefit it makes go-arounds safer with a small engine. Not only can you throw a whopping 90 ponies at a bad situation but if you're carrying a slip you can straighten the plane out and clean it up while increasing lift and decreasing drag. Essentially I treat a slip like I would treat flaps in a flapped plane.
 
It's sort've amusing to me to see a guy with a PA-18 95 or a PA-11 do whatever he can to make his plane more like a 150hp super cub, but at the same time, every person i know that has a 150 or 180hp cub that used to have a light 90hp cub, wishes their plane flew more like their old C90 powered plane that they regret ever selling...
 
It's sort've amusing to me to see a guy with a PA-18 95 or a PA-11 do whatever he can to make his plane more like a 150hp super cub, but at the same time, every person i know that has a 150 or 180hp cub that used to have a light 90hp cub, wishes their plane flew more like their old C90 powered plane that they regret ever selling...
I cut my teeth in a 90 hp Super Cub and had a lot of fun with it. My mission and my pocketbook changed to the 150/160 hp Super Cub. Most 90 hp SCs I see get converted is because somebody wants a less expensive Super Cub and thinks they can modify cheaper than buying the real thing or they get a vested interest in a 90 and they start realizing they need more and start the modification process. I hope it is a very long time before my mission changes and I desire the 90 over the 160 but who knows. I do still have my L18C project.
 
Back
Top