• 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!

Thoughts on the Pa-11?

My 11 at the 3:00 minute mark on Baumann 1500 A floats. If it doesn't work its on youtube under Greenville Maine International seaplane fly-in 2010. mine is heavy with extended wings, micro VG's, 1 17 gallon wing tank, c90-8, mac 1B90 prop. May have had Willy B's prop on in video. https://youtu.be/9F6AJNIpx98

Good video, thought maybe it was going to be a Citabria commercial ;-)

Glenn
 
Having some experience with Nick Smith's wings and fuel tanks I would put it on a set of scales before I would even concider it. The PA11 is a sweet flying airplane unless it gets heavy.
 
PA-11 empty weights, serial number 11-284. This is a "stock" PA-11 with no electrical system. It had an A65 engine and a wood prop on it until recently.
As delivered from Piper, 1947; 736 pounds
Reweigh after restoration, 2013; 754
Reweigh after C90-8F install, 2016; 775
After metal prop install, 2017; 789
With Federal A-1500 skis installed, add 10 pounds net.
 
According to the bbi aviation website the specs are as follows for there Pa-11:
Empty 850lbs
Gross "Experimental" 1800lbs
Gross "LSA" 1300lbs
Gross "LSA water" 1400lbs
Canadian Advanced Ultralight 1232lbs
 
I have an uncle who sprayed from the 60s up until about 15 years ago. Hes worked just about every ag plane. He did a lot of spraying with super cubs in the sixties. His own hanger on the ranch was always occupied by pa-11's.
 
I worked Ag a very long time ago, mostly in Ag-Cats and Stearmans but some in PA-18As. Regarding the Super Cub, there aren't many airplanes that will lift the equivalent of it's basic operating weight in payload like that one will.

The only downsides to the PA-18 as an agricultural airplane were lack of crashworthiness and lack of a "both" position on the fuel selector. Failure to "Murphy proof" the fuel selector led to many wrecks and some dead pilots. I see that somebody finally came up with an S.T.C. to fix that.
 
My granpa used -11's in the 50's. Supercubs were new and a little too expensive then. But the -11 was cats meeooww compared to j3. Big safety upgrade getting those dang fuel tanks out from the front. I have slides of a few cub pile ups spraying in the 50s and 60s. All lived. None were j3's though. Mabe they were a little more cautious with them. Here is pic of my grandpas partners in the late 50s i believe.
20170105_114737-1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20170105_114737-1.jpg
    20170105_114737-1.jpg
    253.7 KB · Views: 660
what could they do to raise the gross wt to 1400 lbs, I see no problem with a 1400 lb gross wt, now that basic med is in effect. It simple means you could put two people in the plane and still have room for fuel.
Wag Aero plans show 1400lbs gross weight on wheels in the specs....he must have been talking about that since the original post mentioned it was experimental.
 
(Yeah, this post is three years old, but I [we] joined today.)

1440? What a luxury. Our [c/n 11-906] legal GW is 1220, but the plane only weighs 761 (actual) pounds with A-65, wood prop, unusable fuel, and full oil. Electrics? What's that? Diane holds the brakes and I hand prop. I'm 170 pounds, the "lovely D" is 130, 17 gallons is 103.7... That's warm-up, takeoff, climb to 1000 AGL and 3+15 cruise with a 0+30 reserve.

In a word "perfect."
 
Back
Top