pa-14 engine 150 or 180

[akgipsy]

I could really use some feed back here guys and gals. After much thought and consideration I have decided to buy a pa-14. I have several hundred hours driving an 18,(all bush work, guiding, flying supplies, hunters, moose, sheep) both of my 18s were stock with 150s. An old friend of mine told me years ago, the cub is a perfect airplane, you don’t need to modify it just leave it alone and learn how to drive it. Is this the case with the 14? Is the 150/160 the best balance of performance, weight, maintenance? For my use now and flying with my kids I prefer the extra room and seating of the 14.

So the dilemma is 150/160hp or 180hp for the engine. I never thought about the 180hp engine until I really got serious about buying and started seeing the 14s with the 180hp. I have seen both for sale and they seem to be close in price. Knowing the price and hassle of converting the 150 to 180, if I buy the 150/160 than that will be it. So it makes sense to purchase a plane that has the engine you want. I will be flying floats, wheels and skis and it seems like your always heavy. Lots of hunting on wheels too.

I don't really care for the look of the cowl on the 180's but from the drivers seat your not looking at it.

I don't expect the 14 to have the bottom end of an 18, but I would like to stay close performance wise and be able to take both of the kids.

 

[Dave Calkins]

I've had a 150HP -14 in the stable and would have put a 180HP engine to good use in that airplane. Especially on floats or skis and in situations where increased climb rate would be nice.

 

[PA14driver]

PA14 Engine

I have a letter from Rodger Borer, who has since passed on, dated Dec 11, 1987, as I asked him that very question. He stated:

"Do not let anyone talk you into installing the 180 engine. The engine adds over 40 lbs over the 150 & burns lots of gas, & theres no decent prop designed for it. The 160 with the Borer prop pitched to 43" is the absolute best power unit for the Piper & you'll burn about one gallon less than the 150."

Well that was over 20 years ago and many have no doubt installed the 180 since. However I have opted to go with Roger Borer's opinion in my rebuild, although not yet finished it is well underway.

 

[Dave Calkins]

Roger Borer was a good guy.

Lots of things have happened since 1987.

Guys are putting 230 HP on the nose of lightweight PA-18 replicas and that much power is a HOOT and also very useful.

A 150HP PA-14 is a very useful airplane. I've done alot of cool stuff and gotten a lot of work done with one. If I still had one right now I would use it.

That said, I would have one with 230HP if that was the airplane I needed again and a pumped up 360 was a legal option.

 

[StewartB]

The difference in horsepower will be less noticeable on tires than on floats. Even with that, if I was buying a plane I'd focus on finding the best plane rather than the biggest engine. Firewall back will cost you a lot more to fix than firewall forward.

SB

 

[5191H]

5191H has been in our family for over 50 years with the 150 hp. The 14 is is a great airplane but has serious limitations when comparing to an 18.

"I will be flying floats, wheels and skis and it seems like your always heavy."

The fastest way to get yourself in trouble is trying to make this a 4 person airplane. It is a wonderful 2 person airplane w plenty of room for bulky gear.

There are plenty of 14s that met their end by being overloaded and too heavy. Its easy to do there's lots of room behind the front seats.

Especially on floats don't overload this airplane...

If I can give you some interesting aviation history. 5191H is the original airplane that Roger Borer did the STC work on to get the 8241 approved as a seaplane long prop.

My dad purchased 5191H in Dilingham back in the 50's but quickly learned that with the short cruise prop it had "no performance" on floats. None, zero, nada dangerous.

Through research with McCauley my dad learned about a longer prop that crop dusters were using with cubs that helped performance.

Dad hung the 8241 on the 14 and the difference was incredible. Roger did the paperwork and dad bought 10 more from McCauley for $125 each and sold them here in Anchorage.

We still have the original 8241...the one pictured is not the 1st but one of the original 10.

IMHO the 150/160 with a custom exhaust and a long prop is a great combo. Take multiple trips especially with your growing family and enjoy the trip.

If you want a 1 trip family and gear airplane maybe a 180/185 would be an option.

We love our 14 and would never part with it, hope this helps.

David Pearce

 

[Steve's Aircraft (Steve)]

One must also remember the original engine on the PA-14 was the 0-235 115 hrsp. The 150-160-180 airplanes are a different animal. Wonder how many 14's are left? When I restored one back in 1975 there where only 99 on the register. On that particular airplane it had been upgraded to the 290-D2 135 hrsp, later installed 0-320 150 hrsp. Good airplane with that engine. I could only imagine what a 180 hrsp one would do. If I remember right, there was a weight and balance issue with a nose heavy airplane with the bigger engines.

Steve

 

[5191H]

Steve you are right the 14 on floats is very "nose over "sensative. With the standard mount and a 150 it is a must to have an aft load.

I have not flown a 180hp 14 but would imagine a short mount and added aft weight would be needed.

David

 

[akgipsy]

Thank you everyone for all of the information and taking the time to share.

 

[Lasater]

PA14

I own 5407H, which was the next to last -14 built. Mine is modified with 150 hp, vg's, -18 tail feathers, 8.50's, and cleveland brakes. Therefore it is almost stock by Alaskan standards.

My family had a 180 hp -18 when I started flying and I loved that airplane. When I decided to buy a supercub of my own, my wife pointed out that we have three young kids and an -18 has two seats. I was lucky to find the -14 nearby and I have really enjoyed it.

Loaded up, it is not the stol machine that our -18 was. Flying with my father Alaska to Texas with stuff stacked to the ceiling, we used a lot more runway than I expected. It is faster than an -18, and much more comfortable when you are by yourself. It is a four place airplane if three of the people are kids.

I always want more power, but the citabria style cowl on the 180 hp -14's are just too ugly for me. Ed

 

[N5126H]

I have many hours in a 160HP (5126H) and 180HP (5103H) PA-14. The 160HP would bet the 180HP off the water everytime, but not because of the HP. Because of the larger wings, angle of incidence, VG's and inboarded flaps. Once in the air the 180 would out climb the 160 but not by much, maybe 100- 150 FPM. The 180hp fell out of the sky like a rock, not only was it heavy in the nose, but that big prop was like a a 2X12 hanging out front and created alot of drag. The 160hp had lots of float and lift with not near the drag. The 160HP is the way to go, keep it light and use PA-18 rigging when on floats. And for the record you do have to look at that ugly 180hp cowling when in the drivers seat. The 160 ran smoother, used about the same amount of fuel.

Just my expierence, but if I had to do it all over again, I would still do the 160.

 

[lakerange]

How about a 300 hp IO-520D?

 

[akgipsy]

5126...how did you change the angle of incidence? Did you modify your wing or are you getting it by using the cub rigging?

 

[N5126H]

The change comes from the use of cub rigging on the floats.

 

[akgipsy]

5126..... sounds like your 160 performs well, when doing the comparison to the 180 are both planes at gross or light? Is it the same on wheels and skis?

 

[N5126H]

I have compared them side by side, same loads, same conditions, everything as close to the same as you can get