Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 123

Thread: PA12 Flight Characteristics Vs. PA18

  1. #81

    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TurboBeaver View Post
    Interesting when the thread ended no one chimed in on the actual merits of a Catto prop on a standard long mount that is always way forward CG when coupled with
    A Borer prop? Removing 17/18 lbs out on the end of the crankshaft will certainly change the age old empty CG curse?? One should also keep in mind that lots of times
    When folks are expounding the merits of 18 vs 12s they are commonly comparing 1250/1300 lb 12s to 1100lb 18s. A light 12 that is" rigged up the same" as the 18; should be just the difference of the AOI of the two wings
    All things equal?? However the old saying "only thing that
    Will beat a cub; is another cub" : Will always be true. But when you think your Cub is a hotrod try it against Greg Peppards 12 some day! LoL

    E
    I agree with TurboBeaver, and canít stress more the merits of the lightweight Catto prop on the standard long mount with 160hp and balanced tail -12. Night and day flight characteristics removing that weight off the nose. That along with VGís and Cub Crafters gap seals on the tail make it an absolute joy to fly. Prior to those changes she had the negativeís characteristics many folks identified/mentioned earlier.
    Donít get any better than a light weight well balanced properly rigged cub. Whether itís a -12 or -18.




    Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app

  2. #82
    Lisa Martin LMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, ID
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 12Geezer2 View Post
    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
    That's the response I was looking to find. PA-12s tend to have too much stuff on the panel, and lots of times no flaps, incomparable with a well balanced Cub. I owned an 800lb PA-12-140 on edo 2000s, a 1200 lb PA-18-150 on edo 2000s and a 1000 lb PA18-105 then converted to 150 on wheels all at the same time. All three airplanes had flaps and PA18 tail feathers. Impossible to compare the floats to wheels, but the two on edo's performed almost identically. I like the PA-12 better to do float instruction in because a lot of large Americans want float ratings, the -12 is easier for them to get in and out of, and the panel was arranged so that the airspeed was far left, so I could keep better track of it (although I do find a PA18 easier to feel...maybe simply because I have no other option in the PA-18s I've done training in). The PA-12-S was extremely docile and controllable, everybody loved it and thought it was the easiest plane ever to fly. Being so light definitely was a major contributor to that. It was a little nose heavy, even with the shorter engine mount and 10lbs added in the far aft of the tail, so that if an applicant was over 250 lbs, pushing 300, they would run out of nose up trim (to my 125 in the backseat), and at times I would switch with them an have them fly from the roomier backseat for the added performance. I love them both, but for my own personal flying, I'll take my Cub any day over the Cruiser. I don't know why. It just fits.
    Thanks RVBottomly thanked for this post
    Likes Steve Pierce liked this post

  3. #83
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by LMartin View Post
    I owned an 800lb PA-12-140 on edo 2000s.
    Really? 800 pounds ON floats, with flaps???? Did you break your pencil when you did the weight & balance calculations? That is an unheard of number.
    N1PA

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    75
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Really? 800 pounds ON floats, with flaps???? Did you break your pencil when you did the weight & balance calculations? That is an unheard of number.
    I was think the same


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    5,806
    Post Thanks / Like
    What's a PA-12-140?

  6. #86
    Lisa Martin LMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, ID
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lycoming O-290D2

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    5,806
    Post Thanks / Like
    Doesn't the 135hp 290 weigh essentially the same as a 320? Not busting your chops, I'm just interested. My old-12 was a joy to fly on EDO 2000s.

  8. #88
    Lisa Martin LMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, ID
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like
    That was the weight of each before floats...it was actually 700+. I couldn't remember how much the floats added compared to wheels (200?). The PA12 was stripped down to bear mins: minimal paint, minimal panel, no interior, no cabin heat, no alternator, etc. The PA12 was one of the few that came from the factory with flaps.

  9. #89
    Lisa Martin LMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, ID
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Doesn't the 135hp 290 weigh essentially the same as a 320? Not busting your chops, I'm just interested. My old-12 was a joy to fly on EDO 2000s.
    The O290D2 weighed less. It was the best power to weight ratio engine Lycoming made. I don't know why they quit it. Old Cub ag-pilots routinely say that was the best performing power on Cubs they sprayed with.
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  10. #90
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by LMartin View Post
    That was the weight of each before floats...it was actually 700+. I couldn't remember how much the floats added compared to wheels (200?). The PA12 was stripped down to bear mins: minimal paint, minimal panel, no interior, no cabin heat, no alternator, etc. The PA12 was one of the few that came from the factory with flaps.
    From TC A-780
    Landing Gear and Floats,
    204. Edo 89-2000 floats with water rudder and seaplane fin (Dwg. No. 11030) +183 lbs. (+14.5)


    +183 lbs was the added weight. The floats themselves weigh aprox. 266 lbs. That 800 lbs is still difficult to imagine and very hard to believe.
    N1PA
    Thanks Flaugherpa12 thanked for this post
    Likes RaisedByWolves liked this post

  11. #91
    Lisa Martin LMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Coeur d'Alene, ID
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    From TC A-780
    Landing Gear and Floats,
    204. Edo 89-2000 floats with water rudder and seaplane fin (Dwg. No. 11030) +183 lbs. (+14.5)


    +183 lbs was the added weight. The floats themselves weigh aprox. 266 lbs. That 800 lbs is still difficult to imagine and very hard to believe.
    Well I can't help you with that one. I don't have a copy of the LEW on hand. Those were my two I had at the same time, and a comparision was requested. If you just want to argue...go find a different pig.
    Likes Kodiakmack liked this post

  12. #92
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm sorry Lisa, I'm not trying to argue only expressing amazement at such an unheard of light weight. I do know that manufacturers were well known to use marketing numbers on their W&B sheets. You did say you didn't know the weight of the floats, so I supplied you with that information.
    N1PA
    Likes jwmusgrove liked this post

  13. #93

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    378
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've got enough (for me, not very much comparably) time in a -12 and an -18 to note the following:

    - A modded -12 will run out of nose up if flown solo (or at least with my phat a** flying it solo) without some strategic placement of survival gear and supplies.
    - An un-modded -12 has a noticeably lighter feel on the stick than a modded -12
    - The -18 does have AOA benefits over the -12
    - I've been in 3 different -18's and 4 (including mine) different -12's. Other than one of the -12's that was essentially unairworthy, all of the airplanes could fly better than I could drive them.
    - I can fly my -12 to it's limit about 1 in every 6-7 flights. When I get to the point that the aircraft is the limiting factor, I'd probably look for a light -18, but I'm not sure I'll ever make it to the point where the critical path to ideal low and slow runs through the aircraft instead of through the driver.
    Back In Alaska
    Likes jnorris liked this post

  14. #94
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,290
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    From TC A-780
    Landing Gear and Floats,
    204. Edo 89-2000 floats with water rudder and seaplane fin (Dwg. No. 11030) +183 lbs. (+14.5)


    +183 lbs was the added weight. The floats themselves weigh aprox. 266 lbs. That 800 lbs is still difficult to imagine and very hard to believe.
    Maybe they used the same scales piper used from the factory.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes PerryB liked this post

  15. #95

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Wolf Lake, AK
    Posts
    5,806
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by LMartin View Post
    That was the weight of each before floats...it was actually 700+. I couldn't remember how much the floats added compared to wheels (200?). The PA12 was stripped down to bear mins: minimal paint, minimal panel, no interior, no cabin heat, no alternator, etc. The PA12 was one of the few that came from the factory with flaps.
    Very interesting. I didn't know any -12s had factory installed flaps. Sounds like a fun airplane. Have you flown a modified -12 with a short mount?

  16. #96

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Northern MN
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    Very interesting. I didn't know any -12s had factory installed flaps. Sounds like a fun airplane. Have you flown a modified -12 with a short mount?
    Didn't know they made them either until I ran into a guy with a bone stock -12 with factory flaps.

  17. #97
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pcj_5189 View Post
    Didn't know they made them either until I ran into a guy with a bone stock -12 with factory flaps.
    They are listed on the type certificate A-780, but only as an aftermarket approval.
    "*602. Flap installation installed in accordance with Mainair, Inc. (formerly Marden +14 lbs. (+39)Airways, Inc.), Waterville, Maine, PA-12 Flap Kit No. 1000-M and Installation Instructions dated January 22, 1949"

    "
    Approval for the installation of all items of equipment listed herein has been obtained by the aircraft manufacturer except thoseitems preceded by an asterisk (*). The asterisk denotes that approval has been obtained by someone other than the aircraftmanufacturer. An item marked with an asterisk may not have been manufactured under a FAA monitored or approved qualitycontrol system, and therefore conformity must be determined if the item is not identified by a Form ACA-186, FAA-PMA, orother evidence of FAA production approval."

    If they were installed "at the factory" I suspect the completed plane was taken "across the field" after production for the modification prior to delivery. It would be interesting to see the original paper work on these two airplanes to answer the question.
    N1PA

  18. #98

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Northern MN
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like
    I saw the plane when I looked at another -12 the guy had for sale and he stated that the one with flaps was one of "a few" that came with factory flaps. I didn't see the paperwork. It was a very nice plane with spats and looked like a good buy for someone wanting to have a unique original specimen. He wanted to sell it but it wasn't something I was looking for.

  19. #99
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    839
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pete,
    He is looking at an "amended" W&B on that 12 that some mechanic who flunked math class, must have done those calculations.
    2 things you can count on is it didn't actually weight 800lbs on floats, and it didn't come from the factory with flaps.....
    Folks often confuse the 14's with 12's and of course the 14's did come from the factory with flaps. The Mardens Airways original mod for flaps on a 12 simply used all factory 14 parts to do the conversion.
    Down to the flap handle being on the RIGHT side of the seat!!! Still a few floating around Maine with handle on right
    side! I have a Cub that shows an empty weight of 860 lbs when it was built in 1983 by Don Snyder in Pa that holds the STCs for
    Lots of PA12 mods........ That weight is of course another fairytale. We are going to do an actual W&B on it this fall (digital scales) when it comes off floats. The number will likely be north of a 1000lbs........... Just the facts of life, when it comes to Cub/Cruiser weights.

    Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Likes skywagon8a, Colorguns, Brandsman, DENNY liked this post

  20. #100
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,290
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TurboBeaver View Post
    Pete,
    He is looking at an "amended" W&B on that 12 that some mechanic who flunked math class, must have done those calculations.
    2 things you can count on is it didn't actually weight 800lbs on floats, and it didn't come from the factory with flaps.....
    Folks often confuse the 14's with 12's and of course the 14's did come from the factory with flaps. The Mardens Airways original mod for flaps on a 12 simply used all factory 14 parts to do the conversion.
    Down to the flap handle being on the RIGHT side of the seat!!! Still a few floating around Maine with handle on right
    side! I have a Cub that shows an empty weight of 860 lbs when it was built in 1983 by Don Snyder in Pa that holds the STCs for
    Lots of PA12 mods........ That weight is of course another fairytale. We are going to do an actual W&B on it this fall (digital scales) when it comes off floats. The number will likely be north of a 1000lbs........... Just the facts of life, when it comes to Cub/Cruiser weights.

    Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    You may not want to weigh it. Or donít record it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  21. #101
    jwmusgrove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    , curious what others who have flown both think comparing the two.
    My experience with both was the PA12 was much closer to the PA18 when on floats, in T/O mode, as opposed to on wheels.
    With the "Borer rudder centering mod", the -12 always felt longitudinally unstable on floats.
    With stock door, the -12 was like getting in, proceeding down a short hallway, then settling into the seat. This got a little more difficult with a life jacket or a parka on. Not so bad with the -18.
    In the -12, NO room between my knees and the bottom of the dash. -18 was better.
    As previously mentioned, with 3 people, the -12 did much better on CG. Also remember, the rear seat requires the 3000# belt. Seen some with the standard 1500 pounder.
    My 2 Ę worth.
    Likes RVBottomly liked this post

  22. #102
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jwmusgrove View Post
    With the "Borer rudder centering mod", the -12 always felt longitudinally unstable on floats.
    This type of mod (not just on the -12) is only a band-aid fix for an airplane that needs more vertical tail area. All it does is to BS the FAA into approving an installation. The ventral fin is required by the Type Certificate when a -12 is on floats. The Borer STC eliminates the ventral fin requirement, which is why the -12 with the STC is longitudinally unstable on floats. More vertical tail area = more longitudinal stability.
    N1PA
    Thanks flynlow thanked for this post
    Likes dgapilot, PerryB liked this post

  23. #103

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    England
    Posts
    514
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Rusk View Post
    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
    I can +1 pretty much all your PA-12 flying experiences in this post Bill My PA-12 is almost completely standard, although now with an O-235-C2C rather than its original O-235-C and interesting that it sounds the same as the 150hp version!! I 1,000,000% agree with the short landing technique, as until I started landing mine like the Pitts S-1S which is side slip pretty much all the way to the flare, I was consistently floating on, whereas the side slip adds REAL speed and rate of height loss control. I also agree with the standing up and lying down analogy with getting in and to be honest, that's the one thing I miss about the PA-18........ I was taught the "sit on the door hinge, hold the windscreen vertical bar, lean back and swing your legs in" technique by a WW2 pilot who originally learned on a Cub when I started flying the 18 and I find the squeezing round and into the front seat of the 12 a lot less fun and elegant

    I agree that the aileron feel is a lot lighter than the 18 and maybe why the roll rate feels better?

    On trim, I again completely agree that the stick force gets VERY heavy when out of trim and one of my most effective mods has been to mount the trim handle in oilite bearings, which at least makes the almost constant trimming a lot more pleasant experience!!!

    Philly
    Every day's a school day
    Likes Crash, Jr. liked this post

  24. #104
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    839
    Post Thanks / Like
    Phil,
    The roll rate feels better because it IS better, the ailerons on the 12 have ALOT more travel BOTH ways than the 18 does,
    And the leading edge of the ailerons is arguably of a better design. Togeather they do give you that feel you are " feeling"...... Piper got it right with the 12 aileron system; But must have decided, it was just to expensive, to use that system In the 18 series ? Cub Crafters basically went back to the 12 type system, on the new X series,
    To take advantage of that system.

    Cheers
    E

    Sent from my moto e5 go using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Last edited by TurboBeaver; 11-14-2020 at 05:17 AM.
    Thanks Philly5G thanked for this post
    Likes Philly5G liked this post

  25. #105
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Flew a buddy's -18 a few days ago, in part to compare with my -12. It seemed a little less responsive in roll, but comfortable, and MUCH lighter in pitch - with seemingly greater stick deflection. Edit: It seemed delightfully well balanced in all three axes.

    At least part of that is different geometry in the stick to base connector link. His has somewhat less measured distance between pivot point to torque tube centerline than mine. My understanding, per Mr Ed's research, is that Piper made some changes in that geometry around 1960 or thereabouts. That would certainly explain a difference.

    SuPilot - what was your comparative impression re stick force/deflection between your 18 and my 12?
    Last edited by Gordon Misch; 11-12-2020 at 11:41 PM.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)
    Likes Coondog liked this post

  26. #106
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Misch View Post
    Flew a buddy's -18 a few days ago, in part to compare with my -12. It seemed a little less responsive in roll, but comfortable, and MUCH lighter in pitch - with seemingly greater stick deflection.

    At least part of that is different geometry in the stick to base connector link. His has somewhat less measured distance between pivot point to torque tube centerline than mine. My understanding, per Mr Ed's research, is that Piper made some changes in that geometry around 1960 or thereabouts. That would certainly explain a difference.

    SuPilot - what was your comparative impression re stick force/deflection between your 18 and my 12?

    I used to know this, I think it is something like .375" difference on the bottom pivot to the torque tube pivot.

    Tim

  27. #107
    Gordon Misch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
    Posts
    3,770
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think it's more than that. He sent me a measurement a day or two ago, and I think it was more like an inch+ in comparison to Piper's PA-12 drawing and the Exp I'm working on now.

    I don't have actual numbers in front of me though, so as usual, I could be significantly wrong.
    Gordon

    N4328M KTDO
    My SPOT: tinyurl.com/N4328M (case sensitive)

  28. #108
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Gordon brings up a good point about the differences in control forces re: ailerons. The length of that arm will reduce the forces required to move the ailerons when it is shortened. However it will also reduce the amount the aileron moves, since the cable will not move quite as far as it used to. C=Pi x D

    When making alterations to a control system while wanting to make a certain improvement, you must look at the entire system to learn what else will be changed at the other end. In this case of reducing control pressures (making it lighter) your maximum rolling authority would also be reduced.

    For example, if you were building your own plane wanting to reduce the control pressures by shortening the length of the arm under the torque tube, you could retain or even improve the authority of the ailerons by moving them further outboard. This gives the ailerons a longer leverage arm when banking the wings thus reducing the force required.
    N1PA

  29. #109
    supercrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Smith Pond near Millinocket, Me
    Posts
    448
    Post Thanks / Like
    I changed the stick to base length when I changed to the s. cub type elevator cable system. The J-3/12 system doesn't use the pully that is between your feet in the center of the front floorboard. The s. cub type is much smoother. My ailerons are outboard without stops on them and I used bearing pulleys there and for both elev. cables. Makes for pretty smooth operation all around for a cub type control system. Those who have flown it say it is very smooth and responsive. And as Pete said the leverage of the ailerons outboard make for easy float lifting at speeds lower than you might expect. Works for me anyway. If someone needs it, the old bushed holes are still in my sticks and I can measure the difference in the old hole and the new one.
    Likes skywagon8a, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  30. #110
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like instructing floats in 12s because I can see around the front seat occupant. To me a 160 hp 12 with flaps is almost as good performance wise as a PA-18 -160. But in a steep bank at low speed I would rather be in a 18. On wheels the 18s seem to have more of the advantage except in cruise if they have the 12 gear.

    I used to own a J5A that had flapless 12 wings, PA-20 tail feathers and a O-290, 125 horse. It was a dream to fly on wheels and weighed 1,004 pounds empty, with a battery and starter. Far better than any 12 I have flown.

    And my old PA-11 90 horse ( Cub Special ) was the queen of low speed yanking and banking. Stock wings, 18 rudder, stock elevators, no electrical at all... She was much more agile than any 18 or 12 I have ever flown and much better than my old J5.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PA-12-150 on Baumann 2100s.JPG 
Views:	73 
Size:	116.6 KB 
ID:	53324   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	180 hp PA-18 departing.JPG 
Views:	71 
Size:	165.5 KB 
ID:	53325  

  31. #111

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Lake Metigoshe, ND
    Posts
    64
    Post Thanks / Like

    Pa-12 vs pa-18

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Clark View Post
    I like instructing floats in 12s because I can see around the front seat occupant. To me a 160 hp 12 with flaps is almost as good performance wise as a PA-18 -160. But in a steep bank at low speed I would rather be in a 18. On wheels the 18s seem to have more of the advantage except in cruise if they have the 12 gear.

    I used to own a J5A that had flapless 12 wings, PA-20 tail feathers and a O-290, 125 horse. It was a dream to fly on wheels and weighed 1,004 pounds empty, with a battery and starter. Far better than any 12 I have flown.

    And my old PA-11 90 horse ( Cub Special ) was the queen of low speed yanking and banking. Stock wings, 18 rudder, stock elevators, no electrical at all... She was much more agile than any 18 or 12 I have ever flown and much better than my old J5.

    I owned both a 150 hp 12, with an 18 tail with flaps, and a pa-18 a the same time for many years. I loved the 12, and thought it performed as good as my 18. The only thing I didnít like about the 12, was as I was getting older, it was harder for me to get in and out if it. I had developed a techinique for getting in and out of the 18, but never did find an easy way to get in and out of the 12
    Thanks Alex Clark thanked for this post
    Likes eviens liked this post

  32. #112
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    In my 12 and J5, I would remove the back stick and first get into or over the rear seat. Then lean forward and walk each leg around the front seat and then sit down up front.
    Float and Tailwheel CFI,
    Dragonfly Aero
    Homer, Alaska
    dragonfly@alaska.net

    http://www.floatplanealaska.com

    or http://www.dragonflyaero.net

  33. #113

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    I guess I’m in the minority. 18 is easy to get in and out except in winter when I have lots of layers on. 12 is easy to get in and out of all year. For the twelve with a long step. Start behind the struts, step one foot on very back/rear of long step, next step is up front, use v brace to stabilize, plant butt in front seat. When exiting I come out in front of struts with one foot on tire then down to ground. For me the 12 feels like I’m walking into it and the 18 requires a bit of flexibility.

  34. #114

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    779
    Post Thanks / Like
    I’ve found that just groaning more and louder helps me in and out of the Cub as I get older............
    Thanks Alex Clark thanked for this post

  35. #115

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like
    How much weight does it add installing the O-320. I was considering a -12 with a stock engine m no mods. I thought the stock engine was an o-290 125 hp? Iím a fair weather grass strip Flyer. Used to own a J3 but I do not like hand propping. I though the -12 might be a good match. Thx!


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

  36. #116
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by J3Jim View Post
    How much weight does it add installing the O-320. I was considering a -12 with a stock engine m no mods. I thought the stock engine was an o-290 125 hp? I’m a fair weather grass strip Flyer. Used to own a J3 but I do not like hand propping. I though the -12 might be a good match. Thx!
    The original stock engine is the 0-235, 100 hp. The alternate engine was 0-235C1 of 108 hp or 115 hp at a higher rpm. The 0-290 was a common alteration during the 1950s.
    N1PA
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  37. #117
    Alex Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Life Long Alaskan
    Posts
    3,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Somebody may have mentioned this already but.
    Running a PA-12 on floats has one advantage right out of the gate.

    The original gross weight for a PA-12 on floats is 1838 pounds compared to the 1760 for a PA-18
    .

    And of course there are more than a few PA-12s with the 1935 pound gross weight increase. Maybe
    more than PA-18s with the one ton STC.
    Why Piper and the FAA gave the PA12 a leap from 1750 on wheels to 1838 on floats, while only going from 1750 to 1760 for the PA-18 is one of life's mysteries.
    Float and Tailwheel CFI,
    Dragonfly Aero
    Homer, Alaska
    dragonfly@alaska.net

    http://www.floatplanealaska.com

    or http://www.dragonflyaero.net
    Thanks barrow pilot thanked for this post

  38. #118
    Colorguns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Bloomfield NY
    Posts
    374
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes. But there is -12 and then a -12S that has extra tube on the left side. Is there any changes in GW on floats depending on what 12 it is?

  39. #119
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Colorguns View Post
    Yes. But there is -12 and then a -12S that has extra tube on the left side. Is there any changes in GW on floats depending on what 12 it is?
    Doug,

    There is a drawing to install that tube to make it work on floats. At this point, I think most of them have it.

    Tim
    Thanks Alex Clark, barrow pilot thanked for this post

  40. #120
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    10,855
    Post Thanks / Like
    From the TC A-780
    Landing Gear and Floats,
    204. Edo 89-2000 floats with water rudder and seaplane fin (Dwg. No. 11030) +183 lbs. (+14.5)
    in accordance with Piper Dwg. 11031 (without spreader bars) orEdo Dwg. 89-180A (with spreader bars). Airplane Serial Nos. 12-1 through 12-3011,and 12-3901 through 12-3966, except 12-3943, 12-3945, 12-3947, 12-3949 and 12-3965, must have additional fuselage brace tubes (Parts Nos. 11026 and 11027 in accordance with Piper Dwg. 11031).

    Doug, The -12 and the -12S are the same except for the landing gear with the associated required equipment. The differences in gross weight are likely based upon the landing loads on the airframe. The additional weight of the floats are not considered in the drop tests since the airframe is dropped onto the floats.
    N1PA
    Thanks Colorguns, Alex Clark thanked for this post

Similar Threads

  1. PA18 or PA12
    By charlie1234 in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-18-2014, 06:16 PM
  2. VGs ... specifically, the flight characteristics
    By NimpoCub in forum The Art and Science of Flying
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 01:12 PM
  3. Odd description of flight characteristics
    By Jon B. in forum The Art and Science of Flying
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2005, 02:57 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
  •