• 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-18-150 empty weight and CG

diggler said:
Crash, just think how good it would fly if you would of put long wings on it :wink:

Actualy my cub is about like the one you got listed except I dont have a cargo pod or a 180. EW is 1115 on 850s. Around 1145 with BWs.

Sounds about right. Do you have the H.D. rear struts? Crash
 
Thanks Cub MD (can we call you doc?)

We'll crafted words put in order to make since. By the way, the PA-18 I "claimed" wieghs 1067, really does, and you're right about the years, my experince is the older ones are generally lighter. Mine is a 1951 model.
Came from Piper as a PA-18 125, then we converted it to the 150, by replceing some tubes. However, as a whole, the plane is lighter than most.
The engine is worked-up 0-320 wide deck, data from the computer hook-up to the dyno we ran it on indicated 187hp at 2700 rpm. Using an 82-42 wheel I "hold" it back to 2700rpm on take off. Of course once at cruise speed the extra ponies do nothing. No doubt, some one will propably call me liar on that also, any takers? Crash? Doubt my wieght? (wanna put you're money where your big mouth is?..or is it easier just to lip off here?..do you REALLY have ANY true flying experince.....lets go for our OWN flying contest....my old (heavy) delapadated peice of junk aginst your shiny new rig)

My PA-11 Cub (actually not mine anymore, got bent) was light and could run circles around most 18's. I won several short-take competions with it, and would absoluty blow away any 180hp cub in the short take off or slow flight contest.

I live in Dillingham, which is rual Alaska, call it "bush" if you'd like. Located 350 air-miles off the road system, Western Alaska, Bristol Bay region.
The reality is that most guys around here do keep thier Cubs light. These are real working Cubs that we use everday for short & rough field work. Of couse the 1,000 lbs mark is what we all strive for. The heaviest Cubs we see around here come from road-system guys that "think" they know EVERTHING. Most of them have ever doo-dad money can buy strapped thie their machine.

ALL of at least MOST of the doo-dads add weight. The overwhelming majority of do-dads are sold to folks because "the added performance".
Well........BIG revelation to all the doo-dad buyer, it ADDS WEIGHT!

If you'd REALLY like to see TRUE maximum Cub performance...fly a lightweight Cub. A real lightweight Cub has an excellent power-to-weight ratio and will fly good, and perform great!

The fellow who built his own cub, then went into great detail, on here to defend his position, about ALL of the work he did to build it light, congradulations! Sounds like a great piece of equipment...bet it flys good to!

Good Flying...>Byron
 
Luke_theDrifter said:
The engine is worked-up 0-320 wide deck, data from the computer hook-up to the dyno we ran it on indicated 187hp at 2700 rpm.

Good Flying...>Byron

I'd like to hear more about that wide deck.

Hope my last post didn't come across to harsh, it wasn't meant that way, don't want to start some kind of pissing match. Just a little testy stuck doing paperwork looking out at the rain and fog I guess. Looks like it's lifting a little, be back in the air in about a hour and everything will be ok again..... 8)
 
Mark, I'll be there, if the weather will permit. Would you have time to weigh my Cub on your certified scales so I won't be talking BS? :)
 
Hey Mark,

No offensive taken here, in fact I thought your post well well crafted. In my opinion it sounds like you know what you're talking about and have some practical flight time.

I'm getting a little case of red-azz at the "hangar pilot(s)". Talk, talk..talk.......talk is cheap, and it is easy to take a pot-shot at somone who makes a post. Sometimes doing the right thing, isn't nessesraily the easiest thing. My point was that some other fellow "Alaskans" seem to make a habit of running folks down that live in the states, think they know EVERYTHING, then lump all Alaskan into thier narrow view point.

The last time I looked this forum was for everyone benifit, even NEW folks that would like to make a post. By using intimidation tactics these particualar indiviuals aren't doing any good for our CUB site, regardless of how many posts they've made or how much time they spend sitting in front of their computer.

Remember what momma used to say??? Are you listening...you..I mean YOU (you know who you are) "if you don't have anything nice to say......don't say anything at all"....then add, if you do pipe-up, use some tact!


I'd like to see that machine that Charles built, I have a passion for lightweight machines, because I know how they perform. I can only imagine how this one does...bet its' great!

good flying...>>Byron
.
 
Luke_theDrifter said:
Thanks Cub MD (can we call you doc?)

We'll crafted words put in order to make since. By the way, the PA-18 I "claimed" wieghs 1067, really does, and you're right about the years, my experince is the older ones are generally lighter. Mine is a 1951 model.
Came from Piper as a PA-18 125, then we converted it to the 150, by replceing some tubes. However, as a whole, the plane is lighter than most.
The engine is worked-up 0-320 wide deck, data from the computer hook-up to the dyno we ran it on indicated 187hp at 2700 rpm. Using an 82-42 wheel I "hold" it back to 2700rpm on take off. Of course once at cruise speed the extra ponies do nothing. No doubt, some one will propably call me liar on that also, any takers? Crash? Doubt my wieght? (wanna put you're money where your big mouth is?..or is it easier just to lip off here?..do you REALLY have ANY true flying experince.....lets go for our OWN flying contest....my old (heavy) delapadated peice of junk aginst your shiny new rig)

My PA-11 Cub (actually not mine anymore, got bent) was light and could run circles around most 18's. I won several short-take competions with it, and would absoluty blow away any 180hp cub in the short take off or slow flight contest.

I live in Dillingham, which is rual Alaska, call it "bush" if you'd like. Located 350 air-miles off the road system, Western Alaska, Bristol Bay region.
The reality is that most guys around here do keep thier Cubs light. These are real working Cubs that we use everday for short & rough field work. Of couse the 1,000 lbs mark is what we all strive for. The heaviest Cubs we see around here come from road-system guys that "think" they know EVERTHING. Most of them have ever doo-dad money can buy strapped thie their machine.

ALL of at least MOST of the doo-dads add weight. The overwhelming majority of do-dads are sold to folks because "the added performance".
Well........BIG revelation to all the doo-dad buyer, it ADDS WEIGHT!

If you'd REALLY like to see TRUE maximum Cub performance...fly a lightweight Cub. A real lightweight Cub has an excellent power-to-weight ratio and will fly good, and perform great!

The fellow who built his own cub, then went into great detail, on here to defend his position, about ALL of the work he did to build it light, congradulations! Sounds like a great piece of equipment...bet it flys good to!

Good Flying...>Byron

If you knew me you wouldn't be so brash.

I wasn't trying to get into a big argument here. My experience comes from 43 years of being around these planes and talking to guys like Rod Milane who weighs Cubs (on certified scales) for a living, as well as Dan Hollingsworth and others who build them for a living. But then compared to you, I know nothing.

Also, you're the one that said you gained 200 RPM by adding the LEE exhaust system and all the other guys on this forum say at best they got 0 to 75 rpm gain? Today you calim you have a "wide deck O-320-150 that cranks out 187 hp" in your Cub , but on February 9th 2004 you said it was a "strong running 150 hp, low time narrow deck". When did it change from a narrow deck to a wide deck and how do you get 187 hp out of an engine with 7:1 compression pistons in it? It just dosn't add up. Crash


Posted: 09 Feb 2004 19:04 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke_the Drifter
Greetings

My favorite cub is my old', slighly beat-up, PA-18 125, (been STC's to 150 ponies) that is a 1950's vintage. The engine is a strong running, low time narrow deck in the original 150hp configuration.

I took off my "old" system which was a Atle Dodge set up, bolted on the new LEE, then flew the thing. This all took place the same day, under the same WX conditions, same temp, same elevation...a true apples to apples test. The very first thing I noticed was the sound difference, deeper sounds, more like a Harley sound versus the ol' cub purring sound. At any rate to get to the meat & potatoes of my test, I personally experinced 200+ rpm gain (static) and a noticable difference on climb-out performace. While its' hard to say how much "horse power", or "torque" gain there is, I could/can tell a VERY noticable difference in rate of climb of raw power for taking-off. By the way, horsepower is a funny word to understand, and a difficult concept for most folks to truly understand, on the LEE website Dane explains his thoughts on the subject.

Byron
 
I've talked to lots of Cub people about weight, and the baseline seems to be consistent with a post made on this site several months back by Kirk Ellis, whom most of us respect. He said that his widebody with no electrical, no headliner, and partial fabric interior weighed 1067. He figured that was 13# heavier than a standard fuselage. He stated the standard stripped weight of a Supercub to be around 1050. Sounds reasonable. I've looked at these airplanes that weigh that much, and frankly, they are so stripped they don't meet the aesthetic requirement that I want for my plane. Oh oh. Now I have to strike a compromise. Headliner, interior, some foam on the seats, electrical, extended baggage, spar beef-ups, tie-downs, an outside baggage door....all add a little. All together, they add quite a bit. Too bad, because that's what I like. So when my 12 finals out to the 1250 or a little more, will I think it's a piece of heavy junk because someone's got a lighter one? No. I'll enjoy the niceties and accept the penalty. For the guys that are happy with a barren but light plane, I think that's great. I rarely fly any plane light, so the quest for the superlight flyer is lost on me.
SB
 
Greetings Crash,

Tooshea'.....its like bringing a gun to a sword fight. When you attcked me, like in your last post, it was pushing my buttons one to many times.

For your info, I recived several PM's meassges "thanking" me for speaking up to you. Maybe this could be a notice to you to posible use a little more tact? Maybe NOT lump ALL Alaskan into your view point?

For the record I do have (2) two 0-320 that I play with in attemps to develop maximum poines. One is a narrow deck, the other is a wide deck. There are both in my shop, care to come look at them? (more than 7:1 ratio, this is not the place to discuss my compression ratios, head work, carb, or other handmade parts)

No doubt you are a very knowledgeable person about airplanes. To give credit where credit is due I have learned some interested facts from your posts. You're knowledge seems to be well-rounded and not limit to single issues. I respect your attention to detail and you're always ready to produce some fact, or quote, or reference WHERE the info comes from...thats great, no everone has the same resourses.

On the exhast issue I did say I saw a 200 RPM increase. Which I did, however if you will review that same area of posts', someone recomended that maybe my old-exhaust system maybe wasn't up to snuff and that would explain the large increase. After that person recomended that I took a VERY CLOSE look at my old system, I did. Upon my inspection I can't say that i really found anything that stood out to be "wrong". Next I bought another new tach, plus hooked up a digtial tach to see what RPM the thing was turning. I didn't put the old system back on to re-check it again, but I am now convinced that my RPM gain was greater than most, (I made this post also) and doesn't make since. Maybe is was a false reading somewhere...water under the bridge.

The fatcs as I see them are you A) you seem to be very knowledgeable B) you take my post out of text for the sake of a public argument, after attcking me.

I will not engage you in another public debate on this forum again, over personal issues. However I will stick to what I said. And I will be glad to have differences in opinion on a range of topics and we can have a healthy debate, afterall the reason for the forum.

Using the catch phrase of me being "brash" shows an example of your personal attack. There is no need for this, the very reason why I will choose not to engage you in a personal urination competion on here
again. If I thought I knew everything, why in the world would I waste my time trying to learn more, become a safer & better pilot, cub builder?

The folks you references, cub builders, are known to be well qualified inidivuals. You trying to prove something....? This information could have been provided as a reference, not a challenge. Like you, I also know some pretty squared away guys that come up w/ some great ideas.

Good flying....>Byron

PS. A quick little departing note; lightweight cubs do fly & perform great. As a practical guy I perform best when actually doing it, versus talking about it.
 
Weight

Luke, I never personally attacked you. You took the first shot by questioning if I had even any flight knowledge. I have to say I am sorry if I offended you.

When I said, in general that SOME of the empty weights stated were "bull wooster", I stand by that statement. A PA-18 with electrical (starter, alternator, battery, wiring and switches) with big tires, 6" Clevelands, double puck brakes, H.D. gear, safety cables and a Borer prop (the most basic Alaska bush set up) will usually come in at 1,140 to 1,170 lbs.

My statement above is a sample Cub in flying condidtion (portable radios etc. installed). I have seen guys B.S. themselves by taking seat cushions, radios etc out of a plane before weighing in just to have a low "on paper weight", but this is not reality.

My statement was not intended to apply to a PA-18-150 with 4" Goodyear wheels and brakes, running stock light duty Piper gear and a wooden prop. You and I will agree that this plane would not last long out where we fly. My statement is refereing to a typical "Alaskan Cub". I too am a "light weight" nut when I build up a Cub. I just can't figure out how to get one down to 1,000 lbs with the typical heavy duty mods that we use up here to make the PA-18 safer and more durable. I am not a "doo dad" freak as you imply. My wings are stock with the lightest amount of silver and dope to be legal and every thing else is very basic. Take care! Crash

180 hp O-360 PA-18, once you have one, an O-320 PA-18 feels like a dog.
 
Okay, guys to get back to the subject at hand, I was told that the giveaway cub by Dan's was well over 1200 pounds: I was told it was 1278 or something like that.

That, folks, is a very well built and well equipped cub, built by folks who definitely know what they are doing. It's also very heavy, and you don't need to see the weight and balance to figure that out.

Doesn't mean it's a bad airplane, but I'm betting Dan's tried pretty hard to keep the weight down.

MTV
 
That, folks, is a very well built and well equipped cub, built by folks who definitely know what they are doing.

I noticed they were using the Stits (Poly-Fiber) process. Kinda surprised me to see them shrinking the fabric with a heat gun.
 
From the Poly-Fiber website:

Can I use a heat gun to shrink the fabric?
>NO! Do not use a heat gun. You have no idea what temperature is being emitted and the temperature reaching the fabric is dependent upon how close you hold the gun. If you have a heat gun hide it until you are through with the fabric covering process.


The Ceconite proceedure manual staes the same now. This used to be legal with dope and people are used to the old way of doing things. Steve Whitmans plane came apart because he followed the old dope procedure instead of the Stits he was using. My concern with the heat gun on Poly-Fiber is the fact that you don't get even shrinkage and can overheat easily and it starts loosening. Poly-fiber coatings don't shrink the fabric like dope does

The Super Cub does look awesome.
http://www.dansaircraft.com/fundraiser_album.html
 
In talking to some of the folks who built this cub, there were around $70k worth of donated parts and pieces. Total cost to build (if you were to hire it done and pay for all the parts) would be around $191,000.
 
Weight

There was a perfectly restored early 60's Cub on display at the Airmans show. Original everything, 8:00 tires, small prop, etc. I asked the guy that was showing it what the empty weight came in at and he said 1,120 lbs. Now add a set of 31" Bushwheels, H.D. 3" extended gear, shortlegs, cabane, safety cables and a Borer prop and I woud bet it tips the scales at 1,180 lbs or there abouts. Equipment list has everything to do with weight. Crash
 
I finally got my C-180 weighed today. I'll share the scoop with you for laughs, criticism, general interest, sympathy, or just to help you appreciate your planes.

1975 180J, (large dorsal fin, like a 185), 29" Bushwheels, 14" XP mods tailwheel, 0-520 w/ 86" 3 blade prop, plumbed for hydraulic skis with the reservoir, pump, and axles on the plane. 1876# with no usable fuel, 10 qts oil. 1314# useful load. In the 3-point, the tail weighs 204#.

I made mention to the weight guy that I thought the 12 would be around 1250#. He told me not to be surprised if it's higher. In his experience, most 12's are.
SB
 
Weight

At 204 lbs on the tail this is definitely a two man (to turn it around) plane on skis. One thing that always kills my itch for a Cessna is when I try to lift the tail by myself. My PA-18 came in at 46 lbs tail weight. You will love your PA-12 on skis. No criticism, they are what they are and are both the best at what they are intended to do. Crash
 
Well then, I've been two men for about 10 years.

Seriously, the point of the post is honest weight reporting. I had a calculated weight of 1800#. That was for a plane that was 30 years old, and was never weighed at the factory. Add volumes of STC's, FA's, repairs, paint jobs, interiors, etc., and the truth gets lost. That plane will fly as well tomorrow as it did yesterday. But the plane will weigh 76# more than it did yesterday. At least on paper.
SB
 
Every airplane I weigh weighs more than the paperwork says it does and my scales are calibrated by the factory periodically.
 
stewartb said:
Well then, I've been two men for about 10 years.

Shoot, I have a hard enough time just trying to be one man. My wife keeps saying "if you were half a man....bla, bla, bla".

Crash
 
.. you would finish the master bath??.. :wink:

Crash, if you are only 1/2, I am barely pushing 1/4....

I only wish I had a C-180 that I could go weigh...

sj
 
I got my printed report back, and thought I'd comment. I have been impressed with the whole process. I recieved a bound 8 1/2 x 11 package with the weight and balance info for my plane on tires and skis, with a complete and accurate equipment list as of that day. The binder also includes the complete Cessna 180 type certificate. For the airplane there's a reduced-size version printed on semi rigid plastic and bound. Very neat and professional. Any information you need to compute a W&B is right there, which is handy since I forgot how to do one about 10 years ago. On that point, I know there are some of you that have also forgotten, so cut me some slack.

You other Alaska guys should consider using this service.
SB
 
Don't feel bad Stewart. I have to relearn every time I do a W&B. Piper does things like make the datum so many inches from the leading edge but makes the CG limits from the leading edge. All kinds of things to confuse a guy or gal. Having your logs in that kind of order sure saves time at annual. Know organize your ADs and STCs that way if they aren't already and someone will think you are an extreme neat freak.

That SC for $169K has logs that even show a picture of each modification. They were the most organized and neat logs I have ever seen.
 
StewartB,

What was the name of the resource you spoke of? Sounds interesting.

What do you have to send them? What's the cost?

MTV
 
Dig, did we miss you at the Fancy Moose? Were you the quiet guy who said he was flying a husky?

sj
 
Back
Top