PA12 vs PA18

I just bought my PA12 about two weeks ago and love it. It has 150hp and VG's, and it definitely takes off and lands short. My newly built home strip is all of 700' long with good approaches from either end and the 12 handles it pretty well. However, when landing I get it stopped ok, but I just don't have much margin for error. My ground roll is roughly 500' with light braking. Takeoffs are not a problem. I'm kinda starting to wish I would have found an airplane with flaps, and I'm envious of all you guys with Borer props and 31" tires. So my plan is to keep this bird for awhile, save up some coins and upgrade to more of a bush plane in a few months. My question is, all things equal ( hp, tires, flaps, prop) how much more short field performance will an -18 give you over a -12? I really like the wide cabin of the -12 and I'm 6'3" tall. Any opinions would be appreciated.

Why not put flaps on your 12. Not cheap, but you know and like the plane. PA-18's are great, but they do fly differently, especially the ailerons. And they are slower.

I thought about that, but I figure for the time and effort I could just sell this one and purchase one with the mod already complete. You say they fly differently...what's the difference? What's different about the ailerons? I've never flown a PA18.

First thing you should do is find an 18 to fly. Depending on where you live you should be able to find someone, maybe even on this site that would be willing to come out and play someday. Quite a few 12s with flaps around too.

Lots of nicely equipped -12s for sale. Of course, I found many of them on various internet sites the day after the rebuild on mine was completed. I would second the suggestion to fly an 18 before you decide to buy one. Regardless of whether the flight supports or mitigates your decision to buy, it's a good thing to fly before deciding.

Some general suggestions that I'd offer (went through the entire process several years ago Get new 12? Get 18? Rebuild 12? Buy Husky?)
- Decide what your mission is and why you might want a better "bush" plane? FWIW, I'd guess (and emphasize guess) that between you and the plane, the plane is more capable right now than you are. 2 weeks input is not really enough to make a decision to switch planes, even if the actual switch is in the future
- (following up on the first point), when deciding your mission, don't limit yourself to -18 or -12. While nothing will replace a light PA-18, depending on your mission, there are several other possibilities: -12, Husky, light 180, possibly Citabria/Scout, etc.
- I'm 6'4" and north of 250. I find the -18 MUCH easier to get into....and more restrictive to actually fly. During my decision process about what to do with the -12, I decided that the extra room was not worth losing, particularly since my mission does not involve any requirements to land in less than 400'
- I'd fly the crap out of your -12 and get to the point wherein you can fly close to the capability of the plane. Before I rebuilt my -12, I had no flaps and a 135 hp engine and no VG's. So I built a 1400' strip at my cabin. After flying the -12 for a few years, I realized that the 1400 foot strip was really just an excuse to get lazy/sloppy on my flying and (given that I had good approaches either way), I didn't need more than 500'. After the rebuild, I'm very conscious of the $$ and time tied up in the 12, but even so, the current 1700' strip is, even with very rusty flying skills, just another invitation (by something more than 1000') to get sloppy.
- Flaps make a big difference (FWIW, I also REALLY LIKE the difference VG's make). If you want to be more "bush" capable, just add the flaps (I realize it's not "just", but particularly if you have -18 tailfeathers, adding flaps is a clearly-defined activity that should make a big performance increase.)
- If you decide that a -12 is for you, and that you have to have flaps, and that you have to add X, Y, Z, I'd suggest finding that airplane and buying it rather than modifying your -12 beyond adding flaps. The time-money continuum (IMO) supports buying versus serious remodeling.

In summary, decide your mission (have I said that before ), then decide why you need any particular aircraft for that mission. Just consider giving the -12 more than 2 weeks to prove itself.

There was a guy on here years ago who was a -12 aficionado and once told me.... " a -12 will do 90% of what a -18 will do in the proper hands....and son, you really shouldn't be doing that last 10% anyway"... Ralph

I am also 6-5 225 and like the extra room the scout has. I am sure you could live with your 700 foot strip with one of those too. I had a 150 cub and with my mediocre skills, the scout always took another 150 feet on both landing and take offs then the super cub.

Butt Kickin 12 here; belonging to well known Ellis clan (Darry) in Gulkana AK.
Doubtful there is a reasonable task it couldn't handle

I have never flown a tricked-out PA-12, but the difference between a stock Cub and a stock Cruiser is simply dramatic. One goes fast and the other does great short field work. I have no idea why they are so different, with the same wing, but some say it is the angle of incidence, and they change that on the modified PA-12.

But what was said above is critical - first define your mission. If your mission is getting in and out of places not designed for aircraft, then a very light beater Cub with big tires is the plan. If your mission is to look like that is what you do, then dropping 200 grand on a PA-12 project will give you a lot of bang for your buck, and you still have more cabin room. But only the wealthiest among us can take a really expensive airplane into the back country and justify the risk.

Good advice from all of you. I especially appreciate the guy talking about "the last 10%..." which I shouldn't do anyway. As far as "my mission", three things...First I'd like a little extra margin at my home strip, since that's 700' every time I fly. Second, I like camping and hiking, and I'd like to make some trips to the desert southwest; Big Bend, New Mexico...and do some remote camping. Third, I'd just like to learn how to land anywhere. Maybe go see the lady up in Idaho(?) and do her one week class on mountain flying. Please don't think I'm a hotshot who wants to prove I'm cool. I'm really conservative, plus I have five young daughters and a wife at home who need me to pay for college.A guy told me once, it's not about this plane, it's always about THE NEXT plane you think about.

If you get the urge, come on up and fly my 12. It sounds like we do the same kind of flying---just for fun. Mine is not a "tricked out" 12 by any means. Flaps, VGs, 150 with supercub tail and trim . Been lucky enough to get to Johnson Crick three times now and do many off airport operations; however with original gear, tires and brakes I am somewhat limited on the off airport stuff. I do operate often from a narrow "weed patch" and only use about 350 to 400 feet--BUT that is on a hill---one way in one way out---power lines and trees. Of course I MUST avoid this strip when there is much of a tail wind. Come on up; we can go play.

I think the main difference with the '12 is that it needs some mods, and the '18 doesn't. I would consider flaps a must have, and VGs are easy and relatively cheap to install.

I go to the Idaho backcountry a couple of times a year in my '12 and every time I go one of my friends with a Pacer comes along too, and parks beside me. That includes the Mile Hi strip, 550' long, 20% slope at 5800+ MSL. My advantages are a better angle of initial climb, slightly shorter takeoff roll and slower landing speed. I guess the message is that just about any tube and fabric airplane with reasonable horsepower can take you where you want to go (unless it's some ridiculous place a la Big Rocks and Long Props) if it's light enough. Anywhere within reason, that is.

I can tell you, these '12s will land MUCH slower than most of us give them credit for. Without flaps that means you have to be willing to land tailwheel first. In fact even with flaps, the slowest landings are tailwheel first. You should reserve that only for smooth grass runways. In time and with some experience in the plane you learn how to touch lightly on the TW then push it up onto the mains. The real solution, I think, is large tires and extended gear.

The variation in performance capabilities in the PA-12 fleet are greater than in the (certified) PA-18 fleet. Reason being that the stock -12 has a much lower level of performance than a stock -18. With proper modification the -12 can converge on -18 performance enough to satisfy most owner's needs. Such is the case for me and my -12. it sounds like you simply bought the wrong airplane. That isn't necessarily because it's a -12. There are lots of really good -12s out there.

A two week honeymoon and already talk of a divorce. Sounds expensive. Good luck.

SB

Great advice from all of you, thanks. It sounds like a modified -12 will do 80-90% of what a similarly equipped -18 will do which I think would be fine for me. Like I said, I'll hang on to this one for a while and maybe by next Spring I'll start looking for a tricked out -12. I forgot to mention one of the reasons I like the -12 is that I can take two of my daughters in the plane with me at the same time. (Only for short hops). But I'm a tractor dealer in Texas and it's gonna have to rain eventually before I can even think about upgrading. You guys have been great, thanks so much. Oh, and 12Geezer2, I'm hoping to go to OSH next year. Maybe I'll look you up and you can give me some pointers. Thanks again guys.

Just an observation. I know several people that fly 12's and they tell people they fly a Super Cub. I don't know anyone that flies a Super Cub that says he flies a Super Cruiser. Take that for what it is worth. If I owned a 12 I wouldn't have any problem telling folks I fly a Super Cruiser. I guess those guys I know have a bit of buyer's remorse or something going on.

One thing I do know. Don't dis someone's airplane. It is tatamount to telling them to their face they have a butt ugly wife.

Torch said:

Just an observation. I know several people that fly 12's and they tell people they fly a Super Cub. I don't know anyone that flies a Super Cub that says he flies a Super Cruiser. Take that for what it is worth. If I owned a 12 I wouldn't have any problem telling folks I fly a Super Cruiser. I guess those guys I know have a bit of buyer's remorse or something going on.

One thing I do know. Don't dis someone's airplane. It is tatamount to telling them to their face they have a butt ugly wife.

Click to expand...

Some people just say Cub because it is easier, than an hour long talk on the difference between the two:???:. To a controller looking at a scope there isn't a difference. Every thing is compared to a Cub. Including wives. You can have a cub size or a 207 size!:lol:

Torch said:

Just an observation. I know several people that fly 12's and they tell people they fly a Super Cub. I don't know anyone that flies a Super Cub that says he flies a Super Cruiser. Take that for what it is worth. If I owned a 12 I wouldn't have any problem telling folks I fly a Super Cruiser. I guess those guys I know have a bit of buyer's remorse or something going on.

One thing I do know. Don't dis someone's airplane. It is tatamount to telling them to their face they have a butt ugly wife.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem telling anyone that I fly a SuperCruiser, but unless one is talking to someone knowledgeable, stating that you fly a SuperCruiser is usually followed by the question of "Is that like a Super Cub?"

Another anecdote regarding the confusion: I've been asked quite frequently by ATC (primarily at Merrill) to identify the type of A/C I was in. I always reply "Piper PA-12": Whenever ATC subsequently tells traffic to watch for me, I've magically began flying a "SuperCub". There was one controller (I believe gone from Merrill now as I haven't heard her voice since returning from Ewe-stun) that would always inform other traffic that they were following/looking for a "White & Red SuperCruiser". Must have been a -12 fan. :lol:

I'm open to all sorts of dissing of my a/c and of the 12 in general......and even if the dissing may be partially legitimate, don't expect me to change planes. The bank account, the wife, and my remaining lifespan won't let me! ;-)

My Super Decathlon is widely called a Piper Cub by the tower - at a distance that is comfortable, it looks a lot like a Cub. They know me, like me, and honor me when they call the Dec a Cub.

Radar, on the other hand, wants to call me a Bellanca. Not smart at all, if recognition is what one wants.

The stock PA-12 was designed for a different mission. Converting it in to a Super Cub used to be a cheap way out, but now it costs a whole lot more than simply buying a Cub. Depends on what you want. When I want landing and takeoff joy, a Cub is the only thing. When I want to go somewhere relatively fast, the Cub is the last airplane I will pick.

The stock PA-12 was designed for a different mission. Converting it in to a Super Cub used to be a cheap way out, but now it costs a whole lot more than simply buying a Cub.

Click to expand...

If your mission is getting in and out of places not designed for aircraft, then a very light beater Cub with big tires is the plan. If your mission is to look like that is what you do, then dropping 200 grand on a PA-12 project will give you a lot of bang for your buck, and you still have more cabin room. But only the wealthiest among us can take a really expensive airplane into the back country and justify the risk.

Click to expand...

Wow. Well, Bob, I don't know how much it cost you to build the last highly modified -12 you built but speaking from my own experience my -12 cost about exactly what it would have cost me to build a certified Supercub to the same level of fit and finish. In fact after some analysis I've estimated the cost to build a Carbon Cub to be right on the same target for total expense. For my uses the -12 is a fine alternative to a Supercub. I'm not interested in contests or fly ins or touch and goes on bluebird days. I load the plane and go somewhere. Truth be told I had a Supercub project at the same time as my -12 project and I chose to build the -12. At this point I'm really not interested in a Supercub, which I consider a lateral move. I do think about a Carbon Cub. That's the only fabric airplane that may someday replace my -12. The 180's status in my family is secure and permanent. FWIW, I'd be totally comfortable operating in and out of 700' in my 180 carrying more than either an -18 or a -12 can legally carry. And more to the point, I can take what I need to take in one trip. Most of the time that applies to the -12. It would not be true for a Cub. And THAT's why I have a 180 and a -12.

SB

I can land and take off in a loaded 180 in roughly 700, but I am somewhat of a coward, and would not routinely do that if the strip itself was only 700' with fences on both ends. And if you can do all the work yourself, I am sure you could build up a PA-12 for the same cost (or less) as a good stock 18. I think that is what I said a couple posts above, but not sure.

I stand by my opinion: If you are going to have somebody else do it, and you can afford to lose a 200 grand airplane, or your insurance company is happy about you practicing long rocks and big props, then the PA-12 modified is a great idea. If you make a living going in and out of the bush, I submit that a beater 50 grand Cub is the way to go - Borer and big tires.

The Carbon Cub is designed for wealthy folk who want spectacular performance and no medical hassles. It does both of those things quite well - but load it up and go in the bush for work, and you are spending more for hull insurance than you can charge your customers.

Still just opinion - I have no problem at all with opinions that differ 180 degrees.

mit greb said:

Some people just say Cub because it is easier, than an hour long talk on the difference between the two:???:. To a controller looking at a scope there isn't a difference. Every thing is compared to a Cub. Including wives. You can have a cub size or a 207 size!:lol:

Click to expand...

Luckily for me Mrs. Torch is Cub SIZE. I ain't in to the More Beef for the Chief size. :lol: That does make sense because every once in awhile a new person in the tower at FAI will call me a Cessna. Now that is a slap in the face. :lol: I have a lot of friends in Kotzebue and FAI that have 12's and they are great airplanes. I came to within a **** hair of purchasing one when I found Torch for sale.

Sorry Bob, I'll just smile and be content with the "tricked-out" PA-12 that I built with excellent professional assistance. And I'll enjoy all my friends who fly Cubs for a living in the Bush and know that NOT ONE of them is flying a "beater". And for the guys who build and enjoy those Carbon Cubs, I envy them. Even though they can't fly "customers" for hire to pay the bill.

To John Ewald, I have a -12 that's a joy to fly. While mine has flaps I will suggest that you may achieve most of the performance increase you seek for about $7K and you've already outlined how. Bushwheels and a Borer prop. Those items will improve your AOA and will allow better performance coming and going. The prop will not only help you go but will help you slow it down. Big tires make braking better. Tires and props can follow to the next plane so the investment is somewhat mobile. Don't write off what you have without at least considering ways to make it what you need. It sounds like you have a good start. Best of luck.

SB

and if your fabric is in good shape, you CAN add flaps with fabric on and not need to recover wings/fuselage, if you already have square wings you can even do long flaps/move ailerons outboard & shorten (Day&Night)

takes some thinking and tinkering to do it with fabric on, but I've done a couple....

I don't think it matters what you fly. If your airplane does what you want it to and you are having fun then everything is good. For me, I like to trout fish and I do it a bunch. Torch always get me there and back and it my be a beater to somone else but it is beautiful in my eyes. Torch has never let me down.

Jeez Stewart. I have nothing against a tricked-out 12. I think we are agreeing, but you are trying to find me disagreeable. I have seen 12s that are so trick it is unbelievable. I would love to fly one - I saw a really great example a few miles south of Talkeetna. And I am sure that there are folks who do go into the bush with $200,000 Top Cubs. If that is the business model in Alaska, then it is actually better for the Cub community - the Cub rebuilders will keep getting orders as the older ones get tired and relegated to the lower states, where we mostly use them for fun.

And if I had lots of money for spare, you bet I would have a Carbon Cub - it would be red, with a yellow lighning stripe. I would stick with the 8:50's and forego the sand bars, I think.

StewartB said:

Wow. Well, Bob, I don't know how much it cost you to build the last highly modified -12 you built but speaking from my own experience my -12 cost about exactly what it would have cost me to build a certified Supercub to the same level of fit and finish. In fact after some analysis I've estimated the cost to build a Carbon Cub to be right on the same target for total expense. For my uses the -12 is a fine alternative to a Supercub. I'm not interested in contests or fly ins or touch and goes on bluebird days. I load the plane and go somewhere. Truth be told I had a Supercub project at the same time as my -12 project and I chose to build the -12. At this point I'm really not interested in a Supercub, which I consider a lateral move. I do think about a Carbon Cub. That's the only fabric airplane that may someday replace my -12. The 180's status in my family is secure and permanent. FWIW, I'd be totally comfortable operating in and out of 700' in my 180 carrying more than either an -18 or a -12 can legally carry. And more to the point, I can take what I need to take in one trip. Most of the time that applies to the -12. It would not be true for a Cub. And THAT's why I have a 180 and a -12.

SB

Click to expand...

It's funny how a 18/12 with a 180/185 load in it makes them all need the same distance to get in the air! But the 180/185 goes a lot faster

907cub said:

It's funny how a 18/12 with a 180/185 load in it makes them all need the same distance to get in the air! But the 180/185 goes a lot faster

Click to expand...

Ya, but empty out the -12 and it will go where the 185 cant. I have had my highly modified -12 since 1977 and have had 4 185s and a 180. Still have the -12.

Thread resurrection...
Well, I sold my -12 for the same price a paid (not counting the $700 hole I poked in the bottom because of landing in a hay field to take a leak) and bought an -18 from Oregon. Man, that was a long trip...Sun river, OR to New Braunfels, TX in 23 hours (over three days)...had to have been a record. It was awesome, and I got to enjoy some really fun off-airport excursions to see the scenery, or sometimes just to listen to the silence. Super cool.
But, what I really wanted to let you guys know was my thoughts on the differences between the -18 and the -12.
First, the flaps make all the difference. In the -12, if I wasn't spot on my speed at touch-down, I'd either land short or float 100' past my aiming point. With the -18, it's night-and-day different. There's so much more leeway on speed 'cause when you chop the power, it's pretty much coming down. Now landing on my 700' home strip is a non-issue.
The -18 is definitely slower (both airplanes with 150 hp), but that might be because the -18 has 31" tires (which are AWESOME!).
The -12 had more room in the cabin, but I think the pilot's seat comfort is about the same between the two.
All said, I LOVE the Super Cub. Of all the airplanes I've flown or flown in, it is by far the most fun. The biggest difference between the two is the damage done to my pocketbook...ouch! The best money I ever spent, but please don't tell my wife I spent the kids college fund.

Has the strip got any longer with experience?

The -12 had more room in the cabin, but I think the pilot's seat comfort is about the same between the two.

Click to expand...

I fly a 12 with flaps, VG's, 150HP. I also fly an 18 periodically. I'm 5-9 190. I think you will find that your 18 with your reported size/stature will be a handfull if you have significant cross winds on your strip. I have no problem with my 12 with aileron throw r/t laying the wing down. I have landed with crosswinds far exceeding the designed limitations of the 12. A little pucker factor, but no problem. The 18 that I fly, I generally have to fly in high wind conditions. It is a fire spotter plane and the only time I fly is when it is hot and windy. To be honest at my stature I find that I don't get the same aileron throw. My anxiety quotient increases exponentially. I am just far more comfortable landing the 12 in adverse conditions. I have not flown an 18 with VG's, but I cannot stall my wings on the 12. It will do a mush. You cannot even force a stall. The 18 is an entirely different animal. I can take my rear seat out of the 12 in 60 seconds and there is enough room for most anything. The extra room is everything to me, but is as often stated: "What do you want to do with the plane?" I would urge you to exercise extreme caution. More than one or two members at this site with tens of thousands of hours and experience that I can only dream about doing off field stuff have been caught in a jam. The plane and it's pilot are somewhat akin to a surgeon and his scalpel. It is all experience and skill. The plane does not make the pilot, it's simply an instrument. Be careful. Just my two cents.