• 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!

PA-11 rebuild

30067F70-F745-4E9C-B31B-253FA4C85DE0.jpg94D305D4-9ADD-453A-A31A-497A9B9C51EC.jpg

relocated the wings and fuselage yesterday for an evaluation.

The guy I bought this project from is a family friend. His dad was recovering it and got distracted by who knows what and never got back to it.

The fuselage looks pretty good so far. 2 tubes with a slight speed bend that should straighten without any headache. It has handles on both sides of the tail AND they are on the upper longeron so that suggestion has already been checked off. It will probably get blasted in the coming weeks for a closer look.

The wings are in great shape. I’ll put new trailing edges, false spars, and bows on them and go to town.
 

Attachments

  • 30067F70-F745-4E9C-B31B-253FA4C85DE0.jpg
    30067F70-F745-4E9C-B31B-253FA4C85DE0.jpg
    95.6 KB · Views: 164
  • 94D305D4-9ADD-453A-A31A-497A9B9C51EC.jpg
    94D305D4-9ADD-453A-A31A-497A9B9C51EC.jpg
    99.2 KB · Views: 165
Make sure you're happy with the low front seat position and front spar crossover right in front of your head.

Gary
 
Make sure you're happy with the low front seat position and front spar crossover right in front of your head.

Gary

Will do!

Is anyone familiar with Stoddard STC SA68AL? There is a tank installed in the RH wing with SA68AL stamped on it. Looking for paperwork, thinking I might keep it.
 
https://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?23413

There may be more...also check with Stoddards and Cub Crafters?

SA68AL Fabrication and installation of Stoddard Model 3 wing tank per Stoddard Aero Service Drawing List No. 68 dated February 7 1975 or later Federal Aviation Administration approved revision. Reissued 1/26/2012

Gary
 
Last edited:
I bought and had an excellent local A&P restore my former PA-11. Owned it from 2001 to 2015 on wheels, skis, and floats. You will have many options to make it heavier but not necessarily better. I let it go because the stock front seating position and my knees didn't agree after an hour. If I had done the adjustable seat (PA-18) and PA-18 top deck STC's to replace the carry through spar I'd still own it. Have some fun with your project.

Gary
 
Have done a couple of the top deck changes. Getting ready to do a third in the next month or so. That and the S. Cub seat makes a major difference in comfort.
 
We put a 18 seat in our PA11 25 years ago. Worked great. One thing I wished we would of done was put in a PA18 torque tube with the short pedestal to relieve some of the back pressure when landing. Always running the trim.


C12158A1-E0E2-4089-9D55-A7AFE7DCC3B5.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • C12158A1-E0E2-4089-9D55-A7AFE7DCC3B5.jpeg
    C12158A1-E0E2-4089-9D55-A7AFE7DCC3B5.jpeg
    196.5 KB · Views: 177
Back in 04 when my Pa11 got restored we did the extended baggage, 18 seats, controls, trim and top deck. At 6' 220 it made it a very comfortable airplane. But it lost what a Pa11 does best, fly perfectly. I built my dream plane but lost my best friend.

Glenn
 
Got the info I need for the fuel tank, now to study if I want to keep it…

I can’t seem to find an STC for single puck Cleveland brakes on this bird. Does such an animal exist? I ask because I have a few sets around so it would be nice to recycle them and I’m not sure double pucks are necessary for my mission.
 
Like Glenn says you don't need a second tank but the little red thing on the wing will be your passenger
attachment.php
 
I find this thread interesting on a couple of fronts. The OP noted that he just wants a plane to fly around the patch, and wants it as light as possible to keep it fun to fly. Those are great and noble goals.

But, a full rebuild is a VERY expensive and time consuming process, even more so if done right. There are a number of mods that can easily be done during a rebuild, but which are VERY difficult to impossible after the rebuild is complete.

So, while the OP is building the plane for himself, I’d also suggest incorporating those mods that don’t really add much weight, but which may be desirable to the “next owner”. In part, that should increase the value at sale (maybe).

As to keeping or removing the right fuel tank, an 18 gallon tank adds a lot of potential weight, both when empty and certainly when full. A right side tank was one of the things I added to my 11, because in the areas I fly, fuel stops can be few and far between. I added a Biplanes 12 gallon tank, which is a bit lighter, and provided lots of fuel.

But, that added tank required cutting brand new (relatively) fabric. The mechanic who did the mod was a fabric magician, and it was near impossible to see the changes. But….$$$.

Of course, that’s not the OP’s problem. But, things like the SC elevator cable routing and trim, I’d absolutely install at rebuild, whether I felt like I needed them or not.

Consider adding some of these things that weigh very little, for the “next owner”.

MTV
 
I think dual 12 gallon tanks is a good mod to add in just for future resale and the potential that you can do XC flights.
 
I like the idea of keeping the original 18 gallon left tank with the addition of the 12 gallon wing tank in the right wing. Simple, minimal weight gain, adds 2.5hrs of added range when needed.
 
I like the idea of keeping the original 18 gallon left tank with the addition of the 12 gallon wing tank in the right wing. Simple, minimal weight gain, adds 2.5hrs of added range when needed.

Me too, I found that fuel quantity to be "just right", meaning plenty enough to do most anything I wanted, and if just putzing around the local area, gas in left only.

That said, if the right wing has already been modified to accept the 18 gallon tank, would installing the 12 gallon tank require replacing that outboard tank rib in the right side?

I also agree with Crash that two 12 gallon tanks with a C-90 could be excellent as well.....bring $$

Finally, the other question for the OP: How was the right 18 gallon tank plumbed in? Was it done as per Super Cub, with a header tank, and full tubing? Or??

You could save some weight by going headerless as well.

MTV
 
All good questions. That was my apprehension was the cost to replace the 18 gallon tank. Since the 12 gallon tanks sit between ribs rather than on them you would have to add back in full ribs in the tank bay which would be fairly costly. 12 gallon tanks just seem right on a J3 or PA-11 IMO. At a worst case of 5.5 gallons per hour it gives a nice even 4 hours with some reserve.

But all things have a cost. If the 18 gallon tank is installed correctly then you may as well leave it and perhaps only have the one tank. 3 hours range is nothing to sniff at especially if you add a baggage and carry an extra gas can or fuel bag.
 
3 hours range is nothing to sniff at especially if you add a baggage and carry an extra gas can or fuel bag.
However, if you are carrying the extra can or bag........ you must have a place to land in order to use it. There is a lot of wild country out there with no place to land. Plumb in the tanks and be happy. The little bit of weight penalty to carry the empty tanks will pay for itself the one time you actually need the extra fuel. Did you ever have an unexpected head wind with no place to get fuel?????????????? I have, it makes for an itchy rear end. It doesn't take much head wind to slow down a PA-11.
 
However, if you are carrying the extra can or bag........ you must have a place to land in order to use it. There is a lot of wild country out there with no place to land. Plumb in the tanks and be happy. The little bit of weight penalty to carry the empty tanks will pay for itself the one time you actually need the extra fuel. Did you ever have an unexpected head wind with no place to get fuel?????????????? I have, it makes for an itchy rear end. It doesn't take much head wind to slow down a PA-11.

Bill Rusk said it best with the 90% rule:

"Build For 90%" or the "90% Rule".

"Take an honest look at your expected flying, (past performance is the best predictor of future performance) and build the airplane for what you will do 90% of the time. For the vast majority of us, with Cubs, if we fly 100 hours in a year most of that time is spent fooling around the local area. Patterns, giving a 25 minute ride, maybe a local hamburger or visit with a friend at a nearby airport to see his new panel etc. Part of the dilemma with Cubs is that we all see ourselves taking that big trip to Northern Canada around Hudson Bay, and Alaska, and that becomes the driving focus. Me too. And I do hope to do that. Hopefully more than once. But the reality is we make that trip once. So over a five year period of ownership we fly 500 hours (obviously this will vary but it usually starts out high and goes down ie the first year we own our cub we fly 200 hours, then the next year it is closer to 150, then 100 then we settle at between 50 and 100 hours a year.)
In that 5 year period we go to Alaska and put 50 hours on the plane for that trip. That is 10%. The other 450 hours are spent messing around the local area. If I add all the extra fuel tanks, GeeWiz gadgets, and everything else to make that Alaska trip great I have built for 10% of my flying, not 90%. Better to have a plane that is perfect 90% of the time and less than perfect 10% of the time. A big part of that is weight. Light Cubs are more fun to play around the local area in. I personally hope to spend more than the average time in Alaska and Canada but the reality is.........

Sometimes we can compromise. A fuel/cargo pod is a perfect example. Rather than put 72 gallon tanks in the wings, which you drag around "ALL" the time, I can put a fuel pod on just for that trip to AK then take it off when just messing around the local area. Plus it keeps the weight low so you are less likely to stand the plane on its nose. All that fuel(weight) wants to go forward and down when you brake. Pretty tough to take the autopilot in and out."

My take on it is there's exceedingly few situations that you'll be in the air for 3 hours without any opportunity to land. Even if you stay up for that long your bladder will force a landing at some point within your fuel range.
 
My take on it is there's exceedingly few situations that you'll be in the air for 3 hours without any opportunity to land. Even if you stay up for that long your bladder will force a landing at some point within your fuel range.

Needing a leak is a really poor reason for landing an aircraft. Why not make provision for in-flight relief?
 
I've never regretted landing taking a leak and stretching my legs in the middle of a long flight but okay I'll bite.

A funnel with a length of tubing hooked up to the float rudder cable pass-through tube could work really well for in-flight relief. Someone should patent it. Million dollar idea.

We may have strayed some from the original topic :)
 
Build for the mission...That's my plan, I just want to ask because I don't know what I don't know. I appreciate the thought of the 90% rule.

The reality of me needing 5 hrs of fuel isn't likely. I have a 185 for those trips and if I want to come anywhere near respecting the 1220 gross I just don't think it's practical, so I think the fuel tank isn't going to happen. I'll probably give Biplanes a call just to see if I learn something that changes my mind.

I stopped by univair yesterday and picked up another armload of parts. Hope to have the wings ready to cover in the next few weeks.

After talking with Jim at Univair, I'm thinking real hard about the super cub trim system. I just don't see a downside at this point and everything is apart anyway.

I'm thinking about the super cub elevator control system. Not sure I see the utility for my mission, but I see Mike's point.

I'm still leaning toward the super cub seat belt mounts for the front seat.
 
I personally think the weight thing is way overrated for most flying. I have found the weather effects how my plane performs usually more than weight. If you are going into/out of extremely short strip or in a STOL competition, I can see trying to get light. Do you really feel a big difference in how your plane flies after you have burned off 10 gallons of fuel? Now if you don't trim for you weight and fight the stick/yoke for the whole flight I can see it getting tiring. Build it so it is safe, comfortable, with a flexible mission capability, you will fly it more. I drag along extra fuel on a lot of flights, not that hard to do if you don't have a choice, once them kids start flying they are going to want to explore, just saying. DENNY
 
In the 15 years I flew my PA-11 w/35 gal fuel I don't recall putting more than 10-12 in each tank. Couldn't and still stay legal especially on floats. It was more like 18-20 for a 2 hour flight plus 45-60 min reserves for headwinds. They are real easy to overload, and being light get tossed around lots on windy days. Too bad Piper decided to keep them a CAR 4a plane with the J-3's TCDS and not explore a new GW certification on conventional gear. I expect @1220# it was convenience vs cost. They did up it to 1350# for EDO 1400 floats however.

Gary
 
After talking with Jim at Univair, I'm thinking real hard about the super cub trim system. I just don't see a downside at this point and everything is apart anyway.

I'm thinking about the super cub elevator control system. Not sure I see the utility for my mission, but I see Mike's point.

Trim could go either way. If you're already in there and have the money to drop on the STC and parts, the PA-18 trim is nice to have. I had problems with my J3 trim for a while that -18 trim probably would have just covered up but after swapping to new pulleys it's flawless and a lot simpler than an -18 system to rig. The new aluminum pulleys are expensive but well worth it and a lot cheaper than adding two more pulleys, new cable, and new STC.

PA-18 Elevator control is another nice to have but not necessary. I contend that the -18 elevator system deadens some of the control feedback you get from the J3/pa-11 bellcrank system. If you're doing the -18 baggage area then you definitely need to do -18 elevator system.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a light 11 is still tipping the scales right around 850lbs. With a 180lb Pilot and 150lb passenger that only leaves about 6.5 gallons of fuel to be legal.
Is there a gross weight increase STC for the PA11?

Larry.
 
Seems like a light 11 is still tipping the scales right around 850lbs. With a 180lb Pilot and 150lb passenger that only leaves about 6.5 gallons of fuel to be legal.
Is there a gross weight increase STC for the PA11?

Larry.

No.

MTV
 
I think Piper got lazy certifying the PA-11 as a CAR 4a plane in combo with the J-3's TCDS. A quick and easy evolution of the J-3 I assume. Lived 1946-49 then replaced by the PA-18.

Gary
 
Back
Top