• 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!

Difference between PA-18 and PA-12

J

JC

Registered User
Wappingers Falls
A few newbie questions for you guys if I may ask them...

I was wondering how different the PA-12 Super Cruiser is from the PA-18 Super Cub in regards to how it flies and handles.

The Super Cruisers appear to cost less money than the Super Cubs? Why might that be?

Thanks. Just trying to learn some more as I dream about buying one or the other.
 
It costs less cause its a fat cub....lol I think by the time you add mods to the PA-12 to have just like what a Stock Supercub already comes with; I.E. Flaps, external bungee landing gear, 150 HP, door thats split. You would have spent the same amount of money total, And even then the Super Cub will land and take off better. But thats comparing a PA-12 to a later version of the PA-18. You can do a Search and find all sorts of great info to answer you questions.
 
JC It's all about mission. The -18 will do some things better than the -12. But you gotta ask yourself if you need that shorter landing or shorter takeoff? Go ahead and check SC.org out; there a lots of posts about both the -12 and the -18. My PA-12 is a really fun , forgiving airplane that will relieve a stress headache in about 5 minutes. (experience speaking) Forty six twelve took me up in his about 5 years ago and I found one to buy in about 3 months. Been real happy with it and wouldn't trade it or sell it. Good luck. Dave
 
Thanks for the info everyone.

I am in the process of getting my PPL and when it is time to buy my first plane I think I would like it to be a Super Cub (or some variation).

You guys are living the dream.
 
John,

I wasn't living the dream until I bought my stock 12 just over a year ago. Even so, I didn't like it much when I first got it, but after 100+ hours and 250 landings I love the thing and wouldn't trade it for anything within reason. My airplane will fly for six hours with full tanks @ 6 gallons an hour, is simple and easy to own and operate, and encourages elbow-out-the-window aviating. The engine/airframe/prop combo is as smooth as a sewing machine and the old gal can do more than a waltz if you want her to. On the down side, it's pretty slow (but who cares?), is not really a three-place airplane unless you are hauling small kids or the Olsen twins, and it doesn't have the mystique of a Super Cub. In my humble opinion, heavily modified 12s aren't 12s at all, but SC wannabees that don't necessarily exhibit the best characteristics of either breed. If you need the better all around performance you get from a nice SC, don't go shopping for a 12. If most of your flying is for sh$%s and giggles, you could do a lot worse than the cheaper, simpler, roomier Super Cruiser.
 
Oldbaldguy,


so how was it with the olsen twins? :)


The 12's fusalage creates lift, the 18 does not nearly as much.

the 12 flies very fast for the power/load, unless you start modifying the landing gear; the 18 is slow.

the 12 can carry two in the rear seat, cramped for adults.

The 18 has better vis. out each side.

everyone else covers some of the other info; but don't sell the champ family short either. I know this is the cub site, but dollar for dollar yo will find the Aeronca's tend to be a great flier, and if flying by yourself, or on strips 1,000+ feet long, they are great!
 
I was just about to disagree with 'tango above, being an owner of both a Cub and a Champ. But he does have a point.

You can get a mid-time 7KCAB or 7GCBC for $30-$35 K. I believe that these are the most underpriced aircraft on the market for what they are. The Cub will teach you more, and has a much tighter feel on the runway in a big crosswind, but the Champ goes a lot faster (120 mph is not an unreasonable expectation) and is a lot roomier.

If I could have only one, it would be a Cub, but they will pry the Super D from my cold dead hands. And it only cost $42K not so long ago . . . they tell me the J3 is worth more, although I only paid 1300 for it.

If you maintain it, whatever it is, you will probably sell for more than you pay. I think I would skip the -12 and the 172, for now.
 
Luscombe vs Cubs and Champs

As I look into this more I find myself more and more confused when trying to compare many of the stick driven taildraggers.

I notice that the Luscombe 8 varies at a much lower price than the Cubs and Champs.

For instance a Luscombe 8A is often seen in the $16,000 to $25,000 price range.

Typically it has a small engine.

The main difference is that you sit side by side with two sticks.

It doesn't have the "coolness factor" of sitting in an open windowed Cub.

Aside from that do the planes fly much differently?

Perhaps this is something I won't fully understand until I actually fly a Cub.
 
Re: Luscombe vs Cubs and Champs

JC said:
As I look into this more I find myself more and more confused when trying to compare many of the stick driven taildraggers.

I notice that the Luscombe 8 varies at a much lower price than the Cubs and Champs.

For instance a Luscombe 8A is often seen in the $16,000 to $25,000 price range.

Typically it has a small engine.

The main difference is that you sit side by side with two sticks.

It doesn't have the "coolness factor" of sitting in an open windowed Cub.

Aside from that do the planes fly much differently?

Perhaps this is something I won't fully understand until I actually fly a Cub.
Click to expand...

Your kinda trying to compare a yugo to a jeep cherokee.
 
Re: Luscombe vs Cubs and Champs

JC said:
As I look into this more I find myself more and more confused when trying to compare many of the stick driven taildraggers.

It doesn't have the "coolness factor" of sitting in an open windowed Cub.

Perhaps this is something I won't fully understand until I actually fly a Cub.
Click to expand...


You might want to go flying period, a Cessna 152 has it's " Coolness" so don't bash a Luscombe because you have the windows closed. I suggest you go fly anything so you will "fully understand". :wink:
 
You might want to go flying period, a Cessna 152 has it's " Coolness" so don't bash a Luscombe because you have the windows closed. I suggest you go fly anything so you will "fully understand".
Click to expand...

I definitely wasn't trying to bash the Luscombe. I saw some ads for them and figured I'd try to see what others thought of them. Some are really nice looking. Especially the polished aluminum ones. (Seen a lot of C-140's and 120's like them too.)

:)

Personally, I prefer the cubs over these. But just want some opinions for the more experienced here.

Maybe there are some problems with them that I am not aware of.

Or maybe the Cub is just a far superior ride.

I definitely plan to bum some rides to experience them myself.
Until then, I'll have to live with the words I read here.
 
OK John, here are a couple thoughts:

Josh is right: Flying ANYthing is way up the coolness scale.

Re: Luscombe: I owned one for several years, liked the light controls, liked the relatively inexpensive ownership. Hated the seating, never could do a long XC for that reason. Some have C-150 seats, which are less bad. Most ragwing variants have a ~15gallon fuel tank right behind your head. NOT where I want to be sitting if things go badly. Kinda blind in turns and heavy traffic. Parts a bit scarce and spendy. If you ding one significantly, not economically repairable. (Steve Pierce, jump in, I think you've wrenched on some??). There were a lot of days I chose to sit watching the wind blow, when I'd have very comfortably flown a Supercub, a Champ, or heck, a C-172

My warped opinion, as much as I love cubs of all sorts, best bang-for-the-buck for someone getting started, a RENTED C-150 (OK, I hear the incoming :snipersmile: .....), then an OWNED Champ 7AC or maybe 7CC. Some decent values in Taylorcrafts just now, too. Cheapest net cost you can own these days (insurance being a big factor) is probably a clean, straight early C-172 straight-tail (EEYIKES!!!! more incoming....)

Also take into careful account the density altitude at which you plan to operate: This wipes out a whole bunch of otherwise interesting aeroplanes for me.

If you're interested in owning, just make sure to get a thorough pre-buy from a mechanic EXPERIENCED in maintaining the type you're interested in.

Just be realistic with yourself about what your personal flying goals and missions are, and you should do OK.

Best luck! cubscout
 
cubscout said:
Cheapest net cost you can own these days (insurance being a big factor) is probably a clean, straight early C-172 straight-tail (EEYIKES!!!! more incoming....)

Best luck! cubscout
Click to expand...

+1
 
More fun than a 172 is probably a ticket on Southwest. I hear they are allowing miniskirts again.

If you want a Cub, by all means get a Cub. Remember, you only get one shot at this . . .
 
Bob,
I respectfully disagree with your statement. Flying anything is what you make of it.
I have a Champ and 172. They serve different purposes and I can have just as much fun in the 172...just depends on the mission. Actually I think it is one of the most versatile airplanes out there for the price factor.

Keith
 
Have you ever owned a Cub? In an inexpensive 4-place, I really have to agree with you. On the other hand, if I never fly another 172 or Cherokee, I will have no regrets at all. Take my Cub or Dec away, and I will cry real tears! If I have the choice even in the pattern, a 172 is next to last, right behind the Cherokee. Wanna go places and have fun? Mooney. Opinion.
 
cub_luscombe_cruiser.jpg


I also have a friend who runs skis on his 172. I hunt some beaches and gravel with my Cherokee 140, and I've seen 'em on floats.

I suppose a guy should figure out what kind of flying makes him happyand if he can afford the cost.

Some guys are happy flying round and round the pattern and little more. Go figure.

...and yes, I own a Cub, or two. :D
 
I agree there. The 180 is one of my personal favorites. I still don't want to fly the 172 any more. Even the ones with decent flaps.
 
JC said:
Thanks for the info everyone.

I am in the process of getting my PPL and when it is time to buy my first plane I think I would like it to be a Super Cub (or some variation).

You guys are living the dream.
Click to expand...

John,

Not sure where Wappingers Falls is, but you are always more than welcome to stop by Side Lake, jump in the front seat of my cub(I'll be in the back of course) and get some seat time. No charge !!
 
David--I looked up Wappingers Falls --only one that came up was New York. On hiway 9 not too far south of a place I,d like to visit sometime--Reinbeck the place where all the WWI airplanes fly.
 
You Cub pilots are a good breed. Very helpful, down to earth folks.

As soon as I get my PPL I'm going to take you guys up on your generous offers. That would be incredible.

I'll buy the burgers.

Never been to Minnesota.
I hear there a few lakes there.
...and a few fish...

:D
 
12Geezer2 said:
David--I looked up Wappingers Falls --only one that came up was New York. On hiway 9 not too far south of a place I,d like to visit sometime--Reinbeck the place where all the WWI airplanes fly.
Click to expand...

Old Rhinebeck Aerodrom is great.

They have all sorts of vintage WWI planes and do a fun air show.
They even have biplane rides, etc. I take my kids there often.

http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

It is a pilgrimage for many. Open every weekend during the summer.

I fly out of POU and practice my landings at Kingston (20N) which is rather close by, but see that Sky Park (46N) (haven't been there yet) would be the closest to the Aerodrome.

Anyhow, if any of you are ever in the area, I would be more than glad to provide ground support to sight see (Aerodrome, FDR's Mansion and Library, and the Vanderbilt Museum/Mansion on the historic Hudson River) or to get a bite to eat.
 
oldbaldguy said:
John,

I wasn't living the dream until I bought my stock 12 just over a year ago. Even so, I didn't like it much when I first got it, but after 100+ hours and 250 landings I love the thing and wouldn't trade it for anything within reason. My airplane will fly for six hours with full tanks @ 6 gallons an hour, is simple and easy to own and operate, and encourages elbow-out-the-window aviating. The engine/airframe/prop combo is as smooth as a sewing machine and the old gal can do more than a waltz if you want her to. On the down side, it's pretty slow (but who cares?), is not really a three-place airplane unless you are hauling small kids or the Olsen twins, and it doesn't have the mystique of a Super Cub. In my humble opinion, heavily modified 12s aren't 12s at all, but SC wannabees that don't necessarily exhibit the best characteristics of either breed. If you need the better all around performance you get from a nice SC, don't go shopping for a 12. If most of your flying is for sh$%s and giggles, you could do a lot worse than the cheaper, simpler, roomier Super Cruiser.
Click to expand...

Olsen twins...I wish...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Can you call a PA-12 a Cub?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
24K
12Geezer2
12Geezer2
eslboat
PA-12 verses PA-12 super cruiser
2
Replies
39
Views
26K
JimC
J
R
Pa 18 trim
Replies
8
Views
1K
rsrguy3
R
J
What to look for...
Replies
14
Views
6K
CptKelly
C
Mikey
PA-12 Rigging for Edo 2000s
Replies
2
Views
2K
cruiser
cruiser
Back
Top