Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 44

Thread: PA18-105 special.

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    PA18-105 special.

    Does any one know did the 105 special have original equipment that included electrics?

  2. #2
    Speedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    1,839
    Post Thanks / Like
    Could you find that info on the Type Certificate?
    Speedo

  3. #3
    cruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    South Glens Falls, NY
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes, it was an option. My airplane was a PA-18 until the early '70's when a new owner put "PA-18-105" on a registration application. OK City liked it so much they went all the way with "PA-18-105 Special". I don't like it much but the airplane does not seem to mind. Jim

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N. california
    Posts
    132
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cruiser View Post
    Yes, it was an option. My airplane was a PA-18 until the early '70's when a new owner put "PA-18-105" on a registration application. OK City liked it so much they went all the way with "PA-18-105 Special". I don't like it much but the airplane does not seem to mind. Jim
    I think it might be "special" ,with a light weight starter, and alternator. Cause light is right!

  5. #5
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas
    Posts
    15,909
    Post Thanks / Like
    105 Special was a CAP trainer. I had one, many had toe brakes ("tango cubs" with T at the end of their N numbers), parachute front seat height, and electrics in all that I have seen.

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Newnan, GA
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve is right, I have N227T. Originally it had a battery, starter, generator, and navigation lights when we got it from the CAP at the St. Joseph, Mo. airport in 1969. The type certificate data sheet says that the 105SP is the same as a PA-18 regarding required equipment (main gear, tailwheel, engine, propeller) except for note 3 which describes a revised battery installation along with the toe brakes, parachute seats, etc. Interesting reading if you own one, but doesn't answer your question.
    Don

  7. #7
    Bill Ingerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Snohomish Washington
    Posts
    1,433
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have 279T and it came with lights, no flaps, toe brakes, Used by CAP and never left California. The back seat had a set up for a Parachute.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have 247t but a it was wrecked in the 70s and has a different fuselage but the cap did own it.

  9. #9
    Cheater1239's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am the new owner of 323T .now in WA, from GA

  10. #10
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    This one?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	397 
Size:	914.0 KB 
ID:	13872  
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Cheater1239's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    This one?
    Thanks for the radio loan, it was sent back a couple weeks ago, I trust it arrived? Turns out it was the connector in the tray had backed way out

  12. #12
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes, I did receive it. Glad I could help. Glad to her it was an easy fix. Have fun with the new bird.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    corvallis,or
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve, your a class act. I've never met you but it seams all you do is help people out.
    I'm glad you received the money for your tail wheel and you still trust people by loaning things out.

    If your ever in the Pacific Northwest let us know early so we can meet.

    thanks for all your knowledge too.

    eric dapp
    KCVO

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have the same problem, my Dad's plane. It is SN 101 and the paperwork was changed to "PA-18-105 Special" about 20 years ago during recover and overhaul. She was built during the first few months of 1950 and has been a Montana ranch plane ever since. I will eventually end up owning it. It is pretty much in original configuration from factory except for 8:50 x 6 tires and second wing tank added. No electrical, heel brakes, 0-235-C1, 13 rib wings. Super light, great fun to fly. Same as you I don't like it much listed as "Special" but the airplane seems to not mind. I would like to correct the paperwork back to PA-18 nuthin when I buy it in the next few years. Not sure how much of a hassle it will be. I understand this is not an uncommon error. Anybody have any advice on how best to handle it?

  15. #15
    cruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    South Glens Falls, NY
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    When ownership of the airplane changes you might try a registration application showing PA-18 (only). When that does not work enlisting the help of your local FSDO would be your next move, IMO. I e-mailed, called and faxed OK City explaining when the mistake was made, no joy. After a conformity inspection by my local FSDO he contacted OK City by letter and they refused to correct it. I give up, good luck. Jim

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok good to know what to expect, maybe I'll have better luck that way.
    Thanks.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like

    105 pa 18 special

    Quote Originally Posted by SJ View Post
    105 Special was a CAP trainer. I had one, many had toe brakes ("tango cubs" with T at the end of their N numbers), parachute front seat height, and electrics in all that I have seen.
    steve, i had a tango cub too. they also call them "light frames" but then you beef up the tail and add this and that and they weigh about the same as most.
    i had heard they were air force trainers, but you say canandian air force? myne had toe brakes, which i thought i would like becuase i cut my teath on a cessna, but those special toe brakes were pretty special if you know what i mean. at any rate its the one i always say i should have kept. it had weld on float fittings, 160hp, borer prop, and vg's. it really wanted to fly. throttle ahead and the thing was about in the air. not quite a carbon cub but not very far behind. and i learned what the saying "climbs like a home sick angel" meant when i flew that plane. wish i still had it. even though you have to put your right foot behind your left ear to get in it. thats why i am looking at a 12. but the standard door is not ingress egress freindly for the front seater.

    sj

  18. #18
    aeroergosum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    North Granby, CT
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bladeflyer View Post
    I have the same problem, my Dad's plane. It is SN 101 and the paperwork was changed to "PA-18-105 Special" about 20 years ago during recover and overhaul. She was built during the first few months of 1950 and has been a Montana ranch plane ever since. I will eventually end up owning it. It is pretty much in original configuration from factory except for 8:50 x 6 tires and second wing tank added. No electrical, heel brakes, 0-235-C1, 13 rib wings. Super light, great fun to fly. Same as you I don't like it much listed as "Special" but the airplane seems to not mind. I would like to correct the paperwork back to PA-18 nuthin when I buy it in the next few years. Not sure how much of a hassle it will be. I understand this is not an uncommon error. Anybody have any advice on how best to handle it?
    I own SN102, also registered as "Special" though I don't think it is. March 17, 1950 model, N# ends with Kilo, 0-235-C1, flaps, nav lights, starter, generator, battery, heel brakes, horn-balanced elevators. Put on EDO 1400 floats in July 1950, second fuel tank installed in 1956.
    Likes D.A. liked this post

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    You guys sure the feds didn’t just correct the paperwork back to its original status? Aren’t all of the Tango cubs 115 Special?

  20. #20
    Bearhawk Builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In the woods
    Posts
    902
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cruiser View Post
    Yes, it was an option. My airplane was a PA-18 until the early '70's when a new owner put "PA-18-105" on a registration application. OK City liked it so much they went all the way with "PA-18-105 Special". I don't like it much but the airplane does not seem to mind. Jim
    What’s the data tag say? Seems that’s the one that really counts. Don’t we all think our Cubs are special.

  21. #21
    S2D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,277
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    You guys sure the feds didn’t just correct the paperwork back to its original status? Aren’t all of the Tango cubs 115 Special?
    They arent Tango cubs. Most of the '50 cubs were Kilo cubs.

  22. #22
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    3,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bearhawk Builder View Post
    What’s the data tag say? Seems that’s the one that really counts. Don’t we all think our Cubs are special.
    This is the data plate on N323T, which a friend of mine owns.
    PA-18-105-SP.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tango cub data plate.jpg 
Views:	221 
Size:	212.7 KB 
ID:	52411
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  23. #23
    aeroergosum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    North Granby, CT
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aeroergosum View Post
    I own SN102, also registered as "Special" though I don't think it is. March 17, 1950 model, N# ends with Kilo, 0-235-C1, flaps, nav lights, starter, generator, battery, heel brakes, horn-balanced elevators. Put on EDO 1400 floats in July 1950, second fuel tank installed in 1956.
    Though I don't know what parachute seat looks like but the one that is installed is uncomfortable after a few hours. It's only a thin padded covering. Flew from 4B9 near Hartford, CT to Medina OH, 6:41 non-stop once.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Hudson, MA
    Posts
    105
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bladeflyer, by any chance does your tail number end in "K" (N####K) similar to what Aeroergosum describes? I think these were sometimes described as "cub specials", but, from what I understand, in 1950, the flaps and O-235 were optional equipment. The plane my Dad owns is a 1950 "Kilo" cub. It now has an O-320, 2nd tank and full electric. Though I never flew it in its original configuration, I heard it was awesome-- with a light load it was a better STOL performer than after the mods and in the air it just handled really nice.

  25. #25
    cruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    South Glens Falls, NY
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    The 1950 airplanes, registrations ending in a K are PA-18’s. Some got changed to PA-18-105’s or PA-18-105 Specials because, in my opinion, various owners filled out a registration application mistakenly using those model numbers. The FAA liked it and changed the model number. I went thru my local FSDO to try to correct mine at OK City, no joy. My data plate is stamped PA-18. My registration says PA-18-105 since the mid ‘70’s
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FB0704E6-439E-4F31-8F4D-F438B002F6E7.jpg 
Views:	134 
Size:	99.8 KB 
ID:	52414   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7D726117-C0F8-4B33-B11B-9B47EA6474FD.jpg 
Views:	125 
Size:	81.2 KB 
ID:	52415   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	B448E5DD-3B63-4440-BA55-466F59FD4F1B.jpg 
Views:	125 
Size:	82.5 KB 
ID:	52416  
    Thanks Steve Pierce thanked for this post

  26. #26
    aeroergosum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    North Granby, CT
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20201117_141050.jpg 
Views:	200 
Size:	82.7 KB 
ID:	52421
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1950 W&B0001.jpg 
Views:	185 
Size:	112.5 KB 
ID:	52424Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1950 W&B0002.jpg 
Views:	173 
Size:	139.0 KB 
ID:	52423Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1950 AFM.jpg 
Views:	192 
Size:	59.6 KB 
ID:	52425

    I'm thinking the Data plate was replaced. It is located at the upper left trim panel. Airplane Flight Manual and W&B note the aircraft as a PA-18 (Commercial). This 18 began service with Central Maine Flying Service, Old Town, Maine on 4/11/1950.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fargo
    Posts
    840
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nope that’s an original early supercub plate
    Thanks aeroergosum, WWhunter thanked for this post

  28. #28
    D.A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Free America
    Posts
    718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by aeroergosum View Post
    I own SN102..."Special"...0-235-C1...Put on EDO 1400 floats...
    Just curious, how did it do on 1400's with the O-235? I just got a "Special" with an O-235 also. I'm hoping to put it on a serious diet and hoping it will make a reasonable single place floatplane?

  29. #29
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,382
    Post Thanks / Like
    From TC 1A2:
    Maximum Weight 1474 lb. with Item 209(a)(See Item 209(b) for 1760 lb.)
    209. Two Floats
    (a) Edo Model 92-1400 floats...
    (b) Edo 89-2000 floats...


    The 1400 floats are approved and legal. However, notice the maximum allowed gross weight is limited for a good reason. There is a limited amount of floatation. In other words, it is under floated. An under floated seaplane is a recipe for trouble in all but perfect wind and water conditions. When you have a choice of minimum or excess floatation and you are looking forward to a safe operation, always choose the larger float. Until you accumulate an amount of seaplane experience, you will not understand. Leave the 1400 floats for the J-3 and PA-11 owners.

    I've flown a PA-18 on 1650s, a float larger than the 1400s. They were too small.
    N1PA

  30. #30
    D.A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Free America
    Posts
    718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post


    I've flown a PA-18 on 1650s...They were too small.
    Thanks - I was considering those as well.

  31. #31
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,382
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by D.A. View Post
    Thanks - I was considering those as well.
    For whatever airplane to determine the minimum sized float. Take the maximum gross weight (1760 for a PA-18 X 0.9 = 1584 X 2 (two floats). FAA requires a 100% reserve buoyancy. So the smallest float for a PA-18 at 1760 pounds would be a pair of 1584s. The nearest float which meets these numbers of which I am aware would be the EDO 1650.

    The maximum weight a pair of floats can legally support would be floatation of one (1650) / 0.9 = 1833 pounds.

    Another example would be a Cessna 172 (2300 lb. landplane gross) on EDO 2000 floats. 2000/0.9 = 2222 (maximum certified gross weight on floats) As you can see, the seaplane gross of the 172 is limited due to the size of the floats. Because of this EDO stretched the 2000 float to 2130. 2130/0.9 = 2366. So the 172 can now utilize it's full landplane gross on floats. That extra 8" in length made a tremendous increase in performance.

    In post #29 I addressed just one issue with undersized floats. Here is another.

    Whatever weight the airplane is on the floats, it will displace an equal amount of water weight. So, any extra floatation will be above the water. When a float is at a minimum size it will be lower in the water than the larger float for the size of the float. Therefor it will require more power to initially accelerate, to push to one side the water, in order to get up on the step where the lower drag allows the plane to accelerate to flying speed. A plane with an "oversized" float will not be as low in the water. Therefor there will be less "solid" water to displace prior to getting on the step. The Cub which I flew on 1650s easily took double the time and distance to get on the step than an identical Cub on 2000s. Once on the step the remaining distance was similar. So in other words, if you can comfortably operate a Cub on 2000s out of a 900 foot pond, you may never get on the step with the 1650s.

    With this in mind, your 125 hp Cub would be happier with bigger floats. The Cub I flew on 1650s had 150 hp. I hesitate to estimate how much further it would have gone with only 125 hp. It certainly would have used a lot more.
    N1PA
    Thanks Bill Rusk, mixer, BC12D-4-85, D.A. thanked for this post

  32. #32
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,382
    Post Thanks / Like
    While we are on the subject, here is reason #3.

    The only difference between the EDO 1650 and 2000 floats is 23 3/8" in length. All of which is forward of the step. An additional 8" made them 2130s.

    In rough water, the ability to remain on the step is effected by the length of the forward section of the float in relationship to the distance between the wave tops. Primarily the flat section of the keel between the step and the location where it starts to curve upward to the bow. Also the optimum angle between the keel and the water surface while on the step is approximately 8 degrees.

    With that in mind the 2000 floats can remain on the step with the wave tops being 2 feet further apart than the 1650s. When the waves are too far apart but also higher than just a few inches, on 1650s the plane would climb up one side of the wave and down the other. As you can imagine, if the airplane does not change it's pitch attitude the angle of the bottom of the floats to the water changes considerably depending on the shape of the waves. From minimum drag angle to maximum drag angle and back again. Low power and short floats just can not overcome these obstacles.

    I had a friend with a homebuilt (Acey-Ducy) 100 hp on 1650 floats. He had trouble getting off in rough water because it kept falling off the step between the waves. This because that 8 degrees disappeared between the waves so it had to start over. We solved his issue by making a new longer set of wings to reduce stall speed and added 50 hp to the nose. Now it had the power to jump from wave top to wave top. But it still had a float/wave issue which the engine and wing were more able to overcome.
    N1PA
    Thanks Bill Rusk, BC12D-4-85, D.A. thanked for this post
    Likes mixer liked this post

  33. #33
    jrussl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    775
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    While we are on the subject, here is reason #3.

    The only difference between the EDO 1650 and 2000 floats is 23 3/8" in length. All of which is forward of the step. An additional 8" made them 2130s.

    In rough water, the ability to remain on the step is effected by the length of the forward section of the float in relationship to the distance between the wave tops. Primarily the flat section of the keel between the step and the location where it starts to curve upward to the bow. Also the optimum angle between the keel and the water surface while on the step is approximately 8 degrees.

    With that in mind the 2000 floats can remain on the step with the wave tops being 2 feet further apart than the 1650s. When the waves are too far apart but also higher than just a few inches, on 1650s the plane would climb up one side of the wave and down the other. As you can imagine, if the airplane does not change it's pitch attitude the angle of the bottom of the floats to the water changes considerably depending on the shape of the waves. From minimum drag angle to maximum drag angle and back again. Low power and short floats just can not overcome these obstacles.

    I had a friend with a homebuilt (Acey-Ducy) 100 hp on 1650 floats. He had trouble getting off in rough water because it kept falling off the step between the waves. This because that 8 degrees disappeared between the waves so it had to start over. We solved his issue by making a new longer set of wings to reduce stall speed and added 50 hp to the nose. Now it had the power to jump from wave top to wave top. But it still had a float/wave issue which the engine and wing were more able to overcome.
    Pete,

    Thanks for sharing all your knowledge with us. I very much enjoy learning from your posts.

    Jeff


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Thanks skywagon8a thanked for this post
    Likes cubdriver2 liked this post

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like
    Priceless information that is only obtained through years of experience. I’ve learned more from a few paragraphs of Pete’s then I have entire books on the subject.


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    Thanks skywagon8a thanked for this post
    Likes Bill Rusk, BC12D-4-85 liked this post

  35. #35
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like
    I too will chime in. Thank you for sharing all your experience and knowledge. Folks like you are what make this such a great site.

    Thank you Pete

    Bill
    Very Blessed.
    Thanks skywagon8a thanked for this post
    Likes cubdriver2, BC12D-4-85, TurboBeaver, D.A. liked this post

  36. #36
    skukum12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Last Frontier
    Posts
    1,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=skywagon8a;829340]For whatever airplane to determine the minimum sized float. Take the maximum gross weight (1760 for a PA-18 X 0.9 = 1584 X 2 (two floats). FAA requires a 100% reserve buoyancy. So the smallest float for a PA-18 at 1760 pounds would be a pair of 1584s. The nearest float which meets these numbers of which I am aware would be the EDO 1650.

    Educate me.. What am I missing? If required reserved buoyancy is 100%, wouldn't each float be required to float the plane at gross? IE, 1750 gross, each float floats 1750?
    "Always looking up"

  37. #37
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,382
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=skukum12;829350]
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    For whatever airplane to determine the minimum sized float. Take the maximum gross weight (1760 for a PA-18 X 0.9 = 1584 X 2 (two floats). FAA requires a 100% reserve buoyancy. So the smallest float for a PA-18 at 1760 pounds would be a pair of 1584s. The nearest float which meets these numbers of which I am aware would be the EDO 1650.

    Educate me.. What am I missing? If required reserved buoyancy is 100%, wouldn't each float be required to float the plane at gross? IE, 1750 gross, each float floats 1750?
    Now your making me look up numbers instead of relying on my old memory. What I've described is the way I was told about the procedure to do the calculations.
    If we take the max gross of the 172 seaplane of 2222 lbs for an example. 2222 lbs X 90% = 1999.8 lbs (size of the float) X 2 floats (100% reserve). CAR 3.370(b). OK, so they rounded up the number by 2 tenths for the EDO 2000.

    CAR 3
    3.370 Buoyancy (main seaplane floats). Main seaplane floats shall have a buoyancy in excess of that required to support the maximum weight of the airplane in fresh water as follows:
    (a) 80% in the case of single .floats,
    (b) 90% in the case of double floats.
    Main seaplane floats for use on airplanes of 2,500 lbs. or more maximum weight shall contain at least 5 watertight compartments of approximately equal volume. Main seaplane floats for use on airplanes of less than 2,500 lbs. maximum weight shall contain at least four such compartments.

    FAR 23
    § 23.2310 Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphibians.

    Airplanes intended for operations on water, must -
    (a) Provide buoyancy of 80 percent in excess of the buoyancy required to support the maximum weight of the airplane in fresh water; and

    (b) Have sufficient margin so the airplane will stay afloat at rest in calm water without capsizing in case of a likely float or hull flooding.
    N1PA
    Likes Bill Rusk, D.A. liked this post

  38. #38
    skukum12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Last Frontier
    Posts
    1,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is how I read it: The floats should support 190% of the gross. 1.9 x 2222 = 4221.8. I still don't know how 100% reserve pencils out from the equation.
    "Always looking up"

  39. #39
    D.A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Free America
    Posts
    718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    ...your 125 hp Cub...

    Don't I wish. I'd give anything for even an O-290 right now but I only have an O-235 - Bummer. But like I've said, I'm just hoping to lighten this Cub enough to make a reasonable single place floatplane.
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    ...An under floated seaplane is a recipe for trouble...When you have a choice of minimum or excess floatation and you are looking forward to a safe operation, always choose the larger float. Until you accumulate an amount of seaplane experience, you will not understand…

    Got it! And thank you for that advice.
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    ...The Cub which I flew on 1650s easily took double the time and distance to get on the step than an identical Cub on 2000s. Once on the step the remaining distance was similar. So in other words, if you can comfortably operate a Cub on 2000s out of a 900 foot pond, you may never get on the step with the 1650s...

    The smaller lighter floats took double the distance to get on the step, Holy cow - This is good stuff!!!
    Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge.

  40. #40
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    12,382
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by D.A. View Post
    Don't I wish. I'd give anything for even an O-290 right now but I only have an O-235 .
    Oops, you're right, you did say that. I got carried away with the discussion. With an 0-235, what I've said is even more important.
    N1PA

Similar Threads

  1. converting pa18-105 special to 135hp
    By lunchmoney in forum Modifications
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-28-2005, 09:57 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •