I fly my Super Cub several times a week and have recently flown several Super Cruisers. 2 were 180 hp and the other 160 hp with the long mount. Trying to figure out if I am biased, curious what others who have flown both think comparing the two. I am aware of the physical differences but would like to hear other's experience flying both airplanes.
Last edited by SJ; 12-12-2017 at 08:38 AM.
Steve Pierce
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
Will RogersCalAeroNaut liked this post
Steve, owning one thing over another normally makes one at least a bit biased - it's a perfectly natural, or at least perfectly common thing.
I have not flown a 12 in over ten years, and the last one I flew was not a prime example.
Of course, we are all waiting for Wendy to chime in here...
sj
"Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
------------------------------------------
Steve
I have Marks PA- 12 in my hangar and get to fly it on a regular basis along with my cub. And occasionally other super Cubs. Marks 12 has very few modifications other than 150 hp and super cub tailfeathers so it is very light. The PA 12 requires a lot of trim. If you are 10 or even 5 miles an hour off of your trimed airspeed the stick becomes heavy very very quickly so one significant difference between the 12 And the 18 is that the 12 requires a constant, and significant, amount of trim.
Perhaps because of the angle of incidence the 12 does not take off anywhere near as short as the 18. I will take off from an intersection, even on amphibs, in the 18 that I would not consider doing in the PA 12 It just has a much much longer take off roll. Marks PA 12 does not have flaps and the 12 has a cleaner air frame than the 18 so it will float forever in the flare, and it is much more difficult to get slowed down on final. So making a short landing in the 12 is much more challenging than making a short landing in the 18. The only way to get in really short on the 12 without the flaps, is to come in completely crossed controlled, in a forward slip, to try to get behind the power curve a little bit so that you don't float in the flair. Some people have said that the PA 12 has a faster roll rate than the 18, but I don't see that. A significant difference is that you get into the PA 12 standing up, you get into the 18 sitting down.
These are just my thoughts, your mileage may vary, and I'm sure others will have another opinions as well.
Hope this helps
Bill
Very Blessed.
Originally Posted by SJ
Steve, owning one thing over another normally makes one at least a bit biased - it's a perfectly natural, or at least perfectly common thing.
I have not flown a 12 in over ten years, and the last one I flew was not a prime example.
Of course, we are all waiting for Wendy to chime in here...
sj
.....just like a PA-18, only better.......
"It's like a Super Cub only better."
Of course, we are all waiting for Wendy to chime in here...
sj
You beat me to it Jeff.
The -12 I owned was pretty stock other than a short mount O-320. It was somewhat of an outlier as it had the original unbalanced tailfeathers as allowed by the Stoddard 150hp conversion (I think). Like Bill said, it was pretty nose heavy and you’d run out of nose up trim when slow and nothing in the back seat. It definitely would have benefited from a lighter prop (catto) and -18 tailfeathers. It was pretty stable in cruise, a little faster and had lots of aileron. More aileron than my -18 which I miss. Some have said there’s not much difference in roll between the two but I disagree. I never felt like I couldn’t pick a wing up in the -12 with just aileron alone. In my -18, I sometimes feel like I ask it to pick the wing up then it just gives me the middle finger so I stomp on the rudder. My -18 does have the early torque tube which Pierce tells me is heavier in control forces. My old -12 was 150ft longer on take off and landing with 31”s an 82/41 Borer and less hp than my 160 -18. For playing around, my -18 more fun.
........to be honest, I told my wife that I bought -12 because of the wide backseat and when her ass got big she’d still fit. She promised me that would never happen so I bought a super cub
The two pireps here both use what I'd characterize as "partially" modified -12s. The pirep comments are no surprise. The perspective I'd like to hear would come from Steve P, about the differences between the three modified -12s he's flown. My old -12 was/is a sweetheart to fly. Take the flaps or -18 tail feathers off of it and it'll be less of a sweetheart. Comparing -18s to each other reveals different characteristics. I think the variation between modified -12s is bigger.
Did Airframes ever receive the STC for the 3-place Supercub airframe? 15 years ago I had a -12 project and an -18 project laying on my floor. I built the -12. Had a 3-place Supercub mod been available then? I would have built a 3-place Supercub. Funny, the best performing -12 I know has Supercub wings on it. I considered building an exp Supercub using -12 wings. That would be a fun project. But there are just too many fun projects and not enough time. Or Money!
I've owned and operated several PA-12's from 108 to 180HP. And PA-18's from 135 to 180. The Cruiser is just that - faster but not quite as good in slow flight. As always, weight is everything. Every single airplane is an individual with its own charms and flaws. PA-12's are heavy on trim, The last one I owned had the PA-18 elevator cable conversion and it made the stick extra heavy because the geometry made the movement greater per amount of stick movement. I didn't care for that at all. Just the same, if you have a nice Super Cruiser, it is a lot of bang for the buck; and a stock 12 with a good O-235 flies like a dream. As for ailerons, there is no comparison. The 12 with its frieze type ailerons is much quicker on the roll. Totally different aileron configuration. Steve P will remember my yellow 12/180 - with extra long wings and how responsive the ailerons were even then. It's kinda like, choose your preference.. light ailerons or light elevators. Or get a light Cubsky and both are "pretty good."
Last edited by WhiskeyMike; 12-12-2017 at 10:34 AM.
I've never flown a 12. But I've flown alongside Wendy in her's and I can say that you'll want to be at the top of your game in an -18 to follow her around.
Airframes is still working on the STC for the three place.
DENNY
Got to agree with Spinner2---Wendy really has the touch with her "12" I personally was spoiled from the beginning---First solo and 20 years in a friends 1952 PA-18 with no electrics and the 0-320 -150. Still my all time favorite. My budget would not permit the 18 so had 15 good years in a 150 "12" with flaps. Fifteen really good years. Light weight is what makes airplanes fly nice. Thought my 12 ailerons were the smoothest ever. Sort of a ham fisted old geezer but always thought the 18 the most fun but sure would not walk away from a good , light 12---FUN ---FUN ---geezer Dan
I have very little experience in rag wing Pipers other than J-3/PA-18. Definitely not qualified to comment.
When has that ever stopped me? I have flown Gordon's 12 - it flies like a Super Cub. Well set-up. I have flown a stock 115 12 a bit, and consider it a Piglet. It does cruise around 100 or so, but I would rather have a Citabria any day in the week. Also flew an otherwise stock 12 with 150 hp. Unimpressed.
I always looked down my nose at Pacers, but flew Don Lee's 160 Pacer on skis, and wound up impressed. Maybe it was the cold weather, but it performed!
In short, a good 160 Citabria would be better and cheaper than a restored 12, unless you really need to carry three cramped people at 100 mph.
bob ---now fly one of Randy Rubbert's 180 Pacers
I’ve flown my 12 with & without flaps, short mount, long mount, 108, 150 & 180 hp engines. Without flaps & with either long or short mount, it was trim trim trim, all the time. With flaps & short mount, I trim it once when the load changes & that’s it. Steve Pierce says my ailerons are heavy, but I guess I’m used to it & don’t notice that. At New Holstein & with the 180 hp, my 12’s take off & landing distances were right in the middle of all the stock 18’s (150-180 hp).
.....my PA-12 is like a supercub, only BETTER!!!
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
I had two PA-18-150's and a PA-12-180. The -12 already had extended wings, stock ailerons and -18 flaps, balanced and enlarged tail, 60 gal fuel, Crosswinds 180 STC and STOL kit, long -18 gear (don't ask how long), and at first an 82" constant speed prop. Plus the usual baggage mods and Cessna 180 front seat on rails. Weighed over 1300 but we complied with the STC and installed a fixed pitch 82-43 prop and other stuff got removed which got the weight down to the mid-1200's. It was an odd duck to fly compared to the -18's and really should be evaluated on their own as modified versus stock configuration. Never flew a stock -12 so can't compare. Electric trim would be nice.
It was a great floatplane but had the rudder centering spring STC which was not effective. Despite a short forward extension to the vert stabilizer (like Cessna's) it wandered about on its own and needed constant control input. I had the STOL cuff and fence removed and preferred that configuration which gained 10+ mph in cruise (yes the cuff was not drooped below the wing bottom). Stall with the cuff was quick when it finally let go, but mushier with the stock wing.
I'd not extend the wing and maybe that would help with the lack of longitudinal stability. Long gear is an asset as the -12 gear sits forward on the fuselage (or is just different in angle, not sure but have a look) and that plus the wing incidence gives a potential lower AOA than the -18. Power is nice and needs adequate fuel capacity with the 180 conversion.
For a float plane mission they are very nice. If wanted for rough and tumble rocks or skis I prefer the -18 which for me were lighter on the controls and lighter on the gear.
Gary
The biggest issue with a lot of re-powered 12's is CG. They are nose heavy and require constant trimming, and run out of elevator before the wing's done flying. The other problem is that with modding they can get fat in a hurry if you're not careful. A carefully modded 12 with a 150/160 and proper CG is a delight to fly. If the solo cruise trim has the H.stab more than 60-65% down the screw, you need to get the CG aft. I cheated a bit and put a ballast weight in the tail of about 5 lbs, and my empty CG is 14.59. I've considered going to a short mount and losing the ballast. It would probably lighten up the pitch some, but I really like being able to work on the back of the engine (pulling mags etc.) without having to strip the nose and swing the mount. Based on that, and the cost, I'm probably going to leave it as-is. Like Gordon, I only re-trim for changes in load. It flys great and will touch down slightly tail first at cruise trim/solo/full flap/no power. If I really want to drag it in, I give it 5 turns up trim and can touch the tail with the mains about 10-12" off. As I've said before, to build the 12 into a good bush machine, you have to love the airplane and hate your savings account.
As to the ailerons, they are slightly more responsive with a slight increase in stick pressure to go along with it, but neither difference is significant.
Last edited by PerryB; 12-13-2017 at 09:30 PM. Reason: Better/more accurate info
After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
Windy: Just curious---How many hours have you flown your 12---in all its many configurations ????? Seems every photo that Bill and his wife have posted (there are many at many locations) there in the foreground OR background sits your 12
Aileron response is much better than an 18. Flying a Cub is put all the stick in and then take out what you don't need. Yeah they are somewhat faster than a Cub, certainly fit more inside. But with all my time and bias toward the 12, the 18 in slow flight, t/o and flare is simply better. I can feel my dad's Cub all the way to the tie down. My 12 seems to lose feel and sorta drops to the ground at landing.
"Always looking up"
I purchased a 12 this summer which is a modded like an 18 with Kenmore conversion 150 hp, I have to say I really like the wider cabin room. It does need more trimming and won't takeoff and land quite as short as an 18 but it is close, recently put on top flap gap seals which helped with the flare and takeoff. It's a joy to fly as is the 18.
SteveE thanked for this post
In 3 1/2 years I’ve got 750 hrs in a -12-180 ext wings flaps 3” -18 gear 31”, -18 tail When I first bought it the Cg was forward and nose heavy, landed in heavy snow and over on its back. Rebuilt and changed CG to 13.54” Empty weight is 1320#. Now I don’t need to retrim all the time and the controls are I would call even. Lands short and takes off short. Took 3rd at Skwentna in 2016. It is all about the CG with the big motor. Fun plane now that CG is correct.as the nose doesn’t fall out at landing. Compared to a J3 the controls are heavy but I’m use to them I guess. Comfortable, roomy, easy in n out with -18 front seat that slides. Cruise 2350 105 mph at 8.5 gph
Doug
Last edited by Colorguns; 12-13-2017 at 02:59 AM.
My point in owning a PA-12-180 (and I assume for others) was the ability to carry more baggage and possibly more weight than an upgross PA-18 (http://www.supercub.org/forum/showth...eight-Increase). It will do that to a point pending useful load.
They are not a PA-18 flown light nor should they be judged as one. Fly them for their great value and performance and forget comparing them to a PA-18 that's lighter and has AOA benefits. Two different tools for different jobs.
Gary
I found the 150hp/short mount/flaps/18 tail-PA12 to be comparable to the 160hp 18 in landing distance. The 12 would stay on the ground for 100-150' longer on takeoff. Cruise speeds were the same with 18 gear.
That's why they once made +6" gear but...mine had it and well that's the rest of that story.
Gary
Hey Doug, what did you do in the rebuild that affected/changed the CG?
Staying alive in an airplane has a lot more to do with mastering ourselves than mastering the aircraft.
MT12
I found that I needed about 9# added to the tail section to get 13.54" Then when I fly alone I put my tie downs, and tool bag in the extended baggage, about 25# to move it back about another 1" or so in the envelope. I can now get on the brakes hard and not worry about the tail coming up. This makes it so I do very little if no trim adjustment as I go thru the flap settings and the trim is about 1/3 up from nose up. If I add a 180# passenger I do about 3-4 turns nose down for take off. Very well balanced, on the trip to AK when really filled up with gear and one passenger I needed to add another 3-4 turns nose down, so now the trim is centered if not a little forward of center on the trim indicator, take off run would be 600' at sea level or close to it. It is all in the setup and any of the -12 that are nose heavy are not set up right, this is from feeling it before and then understanding what I needed to do to put the empty and flying CG in the right spot. Just make sure the weight is solidly attached so there is no movement.
My strip at home is 800' and I generally touch down and stop in under 500' with ease, not having to get on the brakes hard to stop. If I really need to stop it is in 300' if not shorter with no wind.
If you are running out of nose up trim when landing light with flaps lowered you need to move the CG back. IMHO
Doug
There are so many variables---empty weight---rigging----etc---etc. Pilot skills and FEEL for his/her airplane. Have flown a number of Super Cubs that are "supposedly" stock---and seldom find any two that fly the same. Piper had some "variables" in there building process also. Just part of what keeps it all so interesting
I'm a little late to the thread, but I figured I'd throw in my 0.02 american. I've flown a few PA-18s, and a few PA-12s, all of which were in various stages of modification (or not). I found that the less-modified PA-12s generally flew "nicer" than the highly modified ones. A friend has a stock PA-12 with but one mod - Tri-Pacer elevators. It's light, rigged right, and a joy to fly. No more trimming needed than any Super Cub, and the ailerons on a -12 are SO nice!! Super Cruisers with bigger engines and other mods may perform better overall, but they don't fly as nicely in my mind. Same with Super Cubs. I can't find one that flies nicer than my stock 90 hp PA-18. Sure, others will out-perform me in some missions, but I haven't found one that flies nicer.
Now, as someone said, there are too many variables and too much subjectiveness (is that as word?) in this type of discussion to be able to come up with any concrete answers. But for what it's worth, those are my thoughts. As always YMMV!
Though not as common as a PA-12, don't overlook a stock J-5. A bare bones 85 hp J-5 will match a J-3 in performance with room for long legs in the front seat.
N1PA
I have a 180 PA-12 with Cal Centers Dynafocal mount, 84.2/43 McCauley fixed pitch, 96" three hanger flaps (that have that have PA-12 aileron nose ribs), 18 tail, battery forward, 18 3" gear and 29" Bushwheels (older set built by Joe on Fire Lake). She weighs in at 1250" and I get 110MPH indicated at 2400 RPM on 29's. Like Colorguns i carry a 25 pound tool bag that goes to the rear baggage when i'm alone, under the rear seat with one passenger and up front with two passengers. It has worked real well for me.
its the best floatplane I've had my hands on and wouldn't trade it for any 18 out there. On wheels that's another story, she does well but I've had my hands on some sweet 18's that perform very well on wheels.
I've flown a few 150 12's that had 18 gear, 18 tail, 18 flaps, Bushwheels and 82/41 prop that performed very well. Dollar for dollar that setup is tough to beat.
Scooter does very well with his 160 12 (stewartb's old 12). A very nice example!
So do you think there was a definite benefit from the sharp nose ribs on the flaps? I've been wondering that one for a while now....
John
OK, want to chime in here. I've been hard bush flying PA-12s continuously since 1977, somewhere around 4,000 hours. Have probably less than 50 hours in an -18. The thing to keep in mind here, is that for a PA-12 to even get in the ballpark of an -18 it needs to be substantially modified. There in lies the reason you really can't answer this question. There are SO MANY differences in how people modify -12's. I have flown some really great ones, and some that where dang near dangerous or complete pooches. One of the best modifications on the -12 is the short motor mount, as it brings the empty and loaded CG back behind the forward limit which is where you will be with a long mount and a O-320. I have had two -12's: 79H which had a long mount and 53M (bought from StewartB). 3,400 hours in 79H which was long mount and 650 hours in 53M with the short mount. Both were excellent -12s with a lot of modifications, and both rebuilt in part by MCS-Mike. All of the prior discussion of trimming applies to what I saw with the long mount. I have posted before significantly, but I do not trim 53M at ALL from cruise setting to a short final of 40mph or less (all transition done with the combination and order of power reduction, flap deployment and stick pressure transitions).
Here is my read. The -12 when properly modified, and flown in a manner for -12's when flown by an experienced -12 guy will NEARLY do what an -18 will do with a good -18 pilot. The same good -12 and -12 pilot will smoke an -18 pilot who does not know how to really fly one to its potential. Just note what Greg Peppard has done at Valdez, or what I and Brian Turner have done at Skwentna STOL competitions. That said, there are things I can do with a -12 with flying legal loads that are not possible with an -18's in one trip. Examples: a complete Honda 90 3-wheeler and trailer in one trips; 75 2x4 studs (50 on lumber rack and 25 inside); 3 people and gear out of my 800' strip with 50' obstructions; etc. As said many times on this forum, it all depends on your mission and what you do 90% of the time. I would never go with an -18 as the modified -12 suits my mission. Bob Breeden can tell you that I bang around with him pretty good, and he has been suprised how a certified -12 with all of the conviences of an electrical system, good radios and such does when the -12 is built right and the pilot flying it knows how to do it. When I get in an -18 I have a big smile because to me it is SO EASY compared with the -12. You have to work at it to get it right with the -12, and the outside visibilty will never be what the -18 has because of the wing angle of incidence and wider and longer nose cowling. However, the short mount -12 approaches a widebody -18 with Thrustline for visibility.
That's my take. Its all a lot easier with an -18, and they are the full performance short field winner by a hair when driven by competent pilots. A -12 pilot will take a lot of hours to get there, an -18 pilot will get there with a lot less hours. I thank Stewart and Marty and Mike for making 53M what it is, a really solid nice -12.
The reason I started this thread was to see what other's experiences were. I flew WhiskeyMike's 180 hp, open cowl banner tow PA12 with 3 rib bays outboard of the ailerons years ago. I was impressed with the aileron response especially with 3 rib bays outboard of the ailerons. I have been maintaining the Crosswing STOL PA12 that was on the cover of Northern Pilot magazine many years ago. 180 hp, extended wings, flaps, square tail feathers etc. It is an incredible airplane, rock solid on approach but very heavy in pitch and like other's have posted needs trim. I recently finished an annual on a 150 hp, long mount, PA18 tail feathered cub. It too was heavy in pitch and need a lot of trimming through out the take off, cruise and landing configuration. I flew Wendy' PA12 out in Utah and noticed it was heavier in pitch as well and felt heavier on the ailerons than my 18. I am not intimate with a 12 like I am with my 18 so I was curious as to other's experiences. Thanks for the insight, I like the feel of my 18 but see the advantages of the right 12 as well.
Steve Pierce
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
Will Rogers
Amen to that! My first Cub was a stock J5, and it was by far the sweetest flying rag-wing Piper I have ever flown, bar none! It flew SO nicely, and was a ton of fun on skis too. It did have a C-90 in place of the original A-75, which made it perform a bit better, but that didn't change the handling characteristics at all. It was a real sweetheart. And LOTS of room inside too. The front seat was fit for a king, with great visibility and no lack of room. The only downside of that airplane was only one 17 gallon fuel tank, and no electrics. None of that was a problem when I kept it on the farm strip, but I do like the extra fuel and full electrics in my Super Cub now that I'm based here at Oshkosh. But for pure flying enjoyment you can't beat a J5!
John
I can't tell you if it works better than 18 flaps. But having the same false spars and hangers the entire length of the wing helped the recover go smoother and I think better looking. Also with the sharper nose ribs there is minimal gap at all flap settings so there isn't the need for the sheet metal gap seal which makes a much cleaner installation.
Steve
The stock flap shape opens up a gap between the wing and the flap which is making a slot similar to the wing leading edge slats which are popular now. This flap slot accelerates air over the top of the flap in all positions except up, increasing the lift from the flap when they are deflected. This is a good thing. On the surface I believe that you are losing lift by keeping the gap closed.
N1PA
Steve: Great Question!
I just finished rebuilding a 12 this summer, and while I only have 55 hours on it or so, it is interesting how it flys a bit different than my other 12 that I have 2000 hours in, Specs:
12B: long mount, 0-320, heavy oil cooler and generator, odyssey battery in original location, original gear, 18 tail feathers, flaps with gap seals, vg's, 4# of lead in the tail, 1237#
12M: long mount 0-320, l/w oil cooler and alternator, odyssey battery under rear seat, 18 gear and tail feathers, Gross weight increase, flaps, no gap seals,18 style elevator cable routing. 1249#.
I have also flow 2 other 12's
12H: short mount 0-360, 18 gear and tail, rear gill battery, square wings regular length ailerons, 1300#
12X: long mount 0-320, 18 gear and tail, rear gill, square wings-regular length ailerons, 1250#
general observations:
*The extended square wings have a definite and discernible adverse impact on roll rate. Very slow compared to round wings, I don't want them on a plane I own.
*The 180HP adds lots of nose heavy, in a scary way. I agree with Colorguns- 50# of ballast in the baggage compartment is what it took to make it fly like a nice flying 12 with a long mounted 0-320.
*12B takes trim but not excessive, on very short final I do have it trimmed all the way nose up.
*12M takes less trim, just a couple of cranks for landing, feels nose light (I think its the diet oil cooler and alternator-and maybe the weight of the gross weight increase tubes in the rear), but does have a noticeably larger pitch change when flaps are changed (maybe this is the lack of gap seal) Definitely no need for lead in its tail.
*Both 12B and 12M take two trim cranks nose down when adding a pax.
*12M has a definitely heavier pitch feel to it than 12B, I think its the 18 elevator cable routing that makes it feel heavier-I wouldn't do that again.
*Aileron feel is easily affected by aileron cable tightness, one too many cranks on the turnbuckle and it seems to get stiffer.
*All of these 12's feel 'slipperier' than 18's on slowing them down on final, but once you figure that out you are golden.
doug
Staying alive in an airplane has a lot more to do with mastering ourselves than mastering the aircraft.
So is the Kenmore STC the long mount or the short mount?
John
Posting Permissions
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks