• 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!

PA18-105 special.

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
 
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! :)
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
I have 247t but a it was wrecked in the 70s and has a different fuselage but the cap did own it.
 
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
 
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?
 
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
 
105 pa 18 special

:lol:
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 

Attachments

  • FB0704E6-439E-4F31-8F4D-F438B002F6E7.jpg
    FB0704E6-439E-4F31-8F4D-F438B002F6E7.jpg
    99.8 KB · Views: 162
  • 7D726117-C0F8-4B33-B11B-9B47EA6474FD.jpg
    7D726117-C0F8-4B33-B11B-9B47EA6474FD.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 155
  • B448E5DD-3B63-4440-BA55-466F59FD4F1B.jpg
    B448E5DD-3B63-4440-BA55-466F59FD4F1B.jpg
    82.5 KB · Views: 157
20201117_141050.jpg
1950 W&B0001.jpg1950 W&B0002.jpg1950 AFM.jpg

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.
 

Attachments

  • 20201117_141050.jpg
    20201117_141050.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 255
  • 1950 W&B0002.jpg
    1950 W&B0002.jpg
    139 KB · Views: 221
  • 1950 W&B0001.jpg
    1950 W&B0001.jpg
    112.5 KB · Views: 236
  • 1950 AFM.jpg
    1950 AFM.jpg
    59.6 KB · Views: 244
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top