• 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/J3 on Barnstormers

J

jmd4j

Registered User
Hello all,

Sorry for my first post being a question, but I've been a lurker on this site for over a year now. I was wondering if anyone knew about the PA-11/J3 that's on Barnstormers, N41147. The good.bad/ugly? I'm thinking of going to check it out. I searched on the site but couldn't find any previous info on it. Also, I wasn't sure if the owner was on here or not.

1946 J3/PA11 ONE OF A KIND • $48,000 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • N41147 - 4850 TTAF / Continental C90-12 550 SMOH, LSA, 90/05 fuselage/wings recover, FLAPS, Front Seat Solo-PA18: 36 gal headerless fuel system, tail feathers, front seat, cargo, trim, VGs, Stewart Tips, Cleveland wheels/brakes, EDO 1320s tight, metal spars, field approved electric starter and Odyssey battery, and more! Sport cub fun for half the price. 5gph CHEAP to fly! Awesome slow flight characteristics. Leaps off the ground/water with flaps. Great performer and tons of fun. Very comfortable upfront flying. Great condition and shows it. All mods approved! • CLICK HERE TO VIEW PICTURES • Hamilton, OH USA • Telephone: 513-863-3075 513 310 9727 • Fax: 513-863-2736 • Posted April 2, 2012 •

Pictures...
https://picasaweb.google.com/112000...authkey=Gv1sRgCOGhztuEicvKoQE&feat=directlink#​
 
my last j3/pa-11 weighed 1056 pounds empty. fill it up with fuel, if you're over 48lbs you'd be over gross
 
Even a heavy 11 is a great airplane. Paperwork on mine said 830. I’m sure it was over 900 lbs easy. 29” Air-streaks, 18 tail, c90 and the right prop, it did well. Flaps better yet. Gut the thing and pull as much weight out and fly it. Don’t need to fill the tanks very often
 
Thats true, it was a great plane but way different than a light one. Its like the difference between a 160 and a 180 cub. The 180 is nice because of the extra power but the 160 handle and feels so much better.
 
First thing to research is the honest empty weight. Max gross is 1220, so do the math. I’d pretty much guarantee thats barely a single seat plane. And, yes, it’ll fly over GW, but every time you do, you risk your pilot privileges. A wheel bearing takes a shit, you ground loop, break something, now youre talking to FAA.

Me, I’d try to find one that you could at least argue COULD be legal.

FWIW, which may not be much.

MTV
 
Effective gross weight is diffrent from FAA recognized gross weight. I fully understand the FAA risk of flying the aircraft over gross weight. The origonal PA18 had a 1500 gross. With the 150 horse engine it was 1750. This PA11 with a larger engine and PA18 upgrades can handle way more than 1220 pounds.
 
"Effective gross weight"? Hmmm, where would one find the definition of such and where is the number posted? I cannot find the "effective gross weight" on any TCDS. What is the maximum symmetrical allowable load factor at "effective gross weight"? How about asymmetrical load factor? How would one quantify "way more"? The FAA does not determine aircraft gross weight, that responsibility falls upon the engineers that designed the aircraft and validated through required testing for certification. The FAA regulates operating weight because statistically when operators exceed design and tested parameters, bad things happen.
I am amazed at the number of operators that continue to operate with outdated weight and balance calculations that do not reflect reality. This is a classic example of normalization of deviance, (where one has done it for so long with no ill effects it is now erroneously accepted as safe). Valid weight and balance calculations are indeed an operating requirement...and not just because the Feds say so. It predicates both performance and structural integrity. Operating beyond the tested and approved parameters put the operator and passengers in the realm of inflight testing. And just because you've done it before with no observed ill effects is no guarantee of future success. Funny thing how structural components "remember" being exposed to forces beyond their design limits. An event that the operator does not even know occurred as the event was possibly transient due to gusts, note this is possible when operating well below allowable gross weight (how many operators know how to calculate maneuvering speed for the actual operating weight and actually do so?). It is a testament to the designers that these birds stand up to the abuse they are exposed, do not let normalization of deviance be a detriment to safety.

TR
 
This thread was started 14 years ago by the way. But when it comes to flying overweight even the FAA seems to be ok with it at times .https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/202/is-it-legal-to-overload-a-plane-in-alaska just things to ponder.
DENNY
 
DENNY said:
This thread was started 14 years ago by the way. But when it comes to flying overweight even the FAA seems to be ok with it at times .https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/202/is-it-legal-to-overload-a-plane-in-alaska just things to ponder.
DENNY
Click to expand...
While that FAR remains in the books, FAA guidance YEARS ago shut that one down. It takes a letter of authorization from the FSDO, which they explicitly told me late in the last century, (makes me feel old saying that one), that it would never happen again.

One point touched upon while discussing overloaded planes and stress- consider an original PA-11 and many planes of that age have thousands of cycles, hours and abuse from sitting outside. To quote a friend: "metal fatigue is a wonderful thing."

Pretty much no way to predict exactly how much fatigue it takes prior to the metal cracking, breaking or bending. Wing flex from lifting the weight is real, as is flex in the attach areas of wings, gear, engine and tail feathers. Add weight, you add stress.

I am sure we have all gotten away with some flights with an overload situation, but we can also go back to the OOPS Darn it threads and find some situations where they did not.
 
I would never advise anyone to exceed the gross weight limitations. The point I am trying to make here is that this highly modified J3/PA11 is now not the same plane that Piper based the gross weight on. I am sure that if Piper were setting the max gross weight on this modified airframe it would be different.
 
Alaskaflyer said:
I would never advise anyone to exceed the gross weight limitations. The point I am trying to make here is that this highly modified J3/PA11 is now not the same plane that Piper based the gross weight on. I am sure that if Piper were setting the max gross weight on this modified airframe it would be different.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Did you even READ the original post? Here are the mods listed: "Continental C90-12 550 SMOH, LSA, 90/05 fuselage/wings recover, FLAPS, Front Seat Solo-PA18: 36 gal headerless fuel system, tail feathers, front seat, cargo, trim, VGs, Stewart Tips, Cleveland wheels/brakes"

So, you're saying that changing to a PA-18 seat, flaps and tail feathers should increase the gross weight of this plane, or was it the brakes? Note that the engine is just a different (heavier) model of the same engine the plane was originally equipped with.

MTV
 
Here's a partial review of the GW evolution of the J-3/PA-11/PA-18 series> https://www.univair.com/content/J3-Gross-Wt-Increase.pdf

Note what it took for Piper's engineers to evolve them, and what was deemed critical to simply go from 1100 to 1220 GW on conventional gear. No mention of spars, fuselage tubing (much), and various other components exclusive of struts and gear.

I have assumed Piper tagged on the PA-11 to the A-691 TCDS out of convenience to get it certified, but may be wrong. Do note the J3C-65S GW went to 1300, and the PA-11 GW to 1350 on EDO 1320/1400 floats (perhaps more via other manufacturers via STC like Baumann and Aqua), so the OEM gear becomes a factor in determining GW. There's no indication I've found that installing PA-18 gear raises GW beyond A-691.

In my experience adding flaps adds about 20#, and extended wings adds more.

Gary
 
It is interesting to follow certain series of aircraft and the hp/gw evolution. A lot of gross weight depends on horsepower. A lot to do with climb performance.
 
Steve Pierce said:
It is interesting to follow certain series of aircraft and the hp/gw evolution. A lot of gross weight depends on horsepower. A lot to do with climb performance.
Click to expand...
It has a lot to do with lots of things of which most people are unaware. Sometimes it may be one thing.......sometimes it may be many things. Horsepower and climb performance are just two of the things. One really needs to dig into the regulations to find some of the things.
 
skywagon8a said:
It has a lot to do with lots of things of which most people are unaware. Sometimes it may be one thing.......sometimes it may be many things. Horsepower and climb performance are just two of the things. One really needs to dig into the regulations to find some of the things.
Click to expand...
I realize a lot more goes into it but looking at the TCDS for PA18 Super Cub 90 to 150 hp and the PA22 with 125 to 160 hp and the gross weight differences and how they relate to hp and no structural changes is interesting. The structural changes effected Vne.
 
Fill up any certified 18 with a 1750 gross and two men get in. Report back if you’re over gross. That’s with nothing else in the plane. Nothing but fuel and souls. I won’t hold my breath
 
Someone check my math
1000010878.webp
 
GW blab came about. Only reason I mentioned it. But thanks for proving my point. These GW haters….said 1750….not 2000

1750 gross (most) 1200 cub (most) 216 fuel souls x2 at 200lbs(most)= over gross. Mind you that’s with your airplane with nothing in it, most likely. Tool bag? 5 gallon jug? Sleeping bag. Etc

I could give a crap less about what someone flies at weight wise. That’s on them.

But find it all comical. 90% the time when two up, full fuel one is over. Fact. Who cares.

Back to reality
 
Wow! I really like this Group. My first Post has so many replies from some very smart people. All I wanted to do is point out that a highly modified J3 is not the same plane that piper certified. Here in Alaska, we use them.
 
When I was a young lad on the North Slope, I dutifully computed the weight and balance for my captain and told him we could not top off with fuel as he requested as we would be over gross weight. Son he said, let me tell you something about airplanes. They’ll fly a little over gross, but they don’t fly for shi* without gas. Fill er up….
 
Last edited:
hunt/trapak88 said:
GW blab came about. Only reason I mentioned it. But thanks for proving my point. These GW haters….said 1750….not 2000

1750 gross (most) 1200 cub (most) 216 fuel souls x2 at 200lbs(most)= over gross. Mind you that’s with your airplane with nothing in it, most likely. Tool bag? 5 gallon jug? Sleeping bag. Etc

I could give a crap less about what someone flies at weight wise. That’s on them.

But find it all comical. 90% the time when two up, full fuel one is over. Fact. Who cares.

Back to reality
Click to expand...

I sold my PA-18 on floats specifically because I wanted to conduct seaplane training, before the 2000 pound GW kit came to pass. That plane was not real heavy, but it was quite clear that the math just didn't work out for some if not many prospective "students", plus me, plus enough fuel to get a lesson done, not to mention the only DPE at the time was a big un. So, I sold that plane, bought a great old Cessna 170B with a Lyc O-360, put it on floats, and never met a student I couldn't work with, including one 300 pounder.

Point is, when you're instructing (and sometimes other sorts of work), gross weight probably should be a consideration. Just the other day, I got a request from a gent who I happen to know is, shall we say, larger than the FAA "average pilot". He wanted a Flight Review in his plane, a 7GCBC Citabria. Now, I've been around and flown a number of Citabrias, and their useful load is minimal, sorta like a SC at 1750. So, I told him to do a W/B for him, me, two hours of fuel, and call me back if that would be legal. He never called back.

Now, understand that I have operated airplanes in excess of their certificated gross weight. In the Restricted category as "Public Aircraft", ie: essentially out of the purview of the FAA. It didn't scare me then, though it may not have been the wisest thing even considering circumstances.

But, consider this: Ever have a wheel bearing take a dump, or a flat tire, or any of several other things that COULD suddenly involve the FAA? I have. I spent a LOT of time and $$$ earning my pilot and instructor credentials, and I have no intention of losing those privileges just to help someone else get a flight review done. As a CFI, I'm going to be considered the PIC in that program, and I have no doubt the FAA would happily revoke or suspend that certificate.

So, fly over gross by yourself all you like, but give some consideration to that CFI you ask to administer a Flight Review in a plane that will clearly be over gross.

Sermon over.

MTV
 
Mike, I love it when you rant! Almost no one has your experience, and almost no one has your command of the English language!
 
mvivion said:
.... I have no intention of losing those privileges just to help someone else get a flight review done. As a CFI, I'm going to be considered the PIC in that program, and I have no doubt the FAA would happily revoke or suspend that certificate. So, fly over gross by yourself all you like, but give some consideration to that CFI you ask to administer a Flight Review in a plane that will clearly be over gross.
Click to expand...

So is the CFI considered to be the PIC during a flight review?
It was my understanding that he/she is not,
as long as the pilot being reviewed holds the appropriate licenses, ratings, & endorsements for the aircraft being flown.
This is why (I believe) a CFI can conduct flight reviews without having a current medical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

1
J3/PA-11 on Barnstormers
Replies
1
Views
1K
bob turner
B
Back
Top