I just looked at a Piper PA 12 and realized that they have no flaps. I have read that the PA 12 will not operate as short as a PA 18 even with the same engine. Well with no flaps, that should be obvious. If you add the flap kit to the 12, then how does it compare?

Tim

qmdv wrote:I just looked at a Piper PA 12 and realized that they have no flaps. I have read that the PA 12 will not operate as short as a PA 18 even with the same engine. Well with no flaps, that should be obvious. If you add the flap kit to the 12, then how does it compare?


Tim

PA-12 I flew had flaps-maybe modified. PA 12 has a little more room in back seat -if your really small ---
one I flew had a 150 hp Lyc. and Borger prop . About 100+ mph with big wheels -view is great.

My question is this. Take a PA 18 with 150 HP and whatever prop and compare it to a PA 12, 150 HP and same prop but add a flap STC. How do they compare, assuming that they are piloted with pilots of equal skills. OK for you VG guys lets assume they both have them.

Oh and they are both yellow.

Tim

It sounds like they will be close, but the PA-18 will have the advantage. Here is a recent thread on SC.org that covers this very topic. Lots of good info over there, although they might be a little biased.

http://www.supercub.org/forum/showthrea ... 12-vs-PA18

I like this quote:

" a -12 will do 90% of what a -18 will do in the proper hands....and son, you really shouldn't be doing that last 10% anyway"...

mountainmatt wrote:I sounds like the they will be close, but the PA-18 will have the advantage. Here is a recent thread on SC.org that covers this very topic. Lots of good info over there, although they might be a little biased.

http://www.supercub.org/forum/showthrea ... 12-vs-PA18

I like this quote:

" a -12 will do 90% of what a -18 will do in the proper hands....and son, you really shouldn't be doing that last 10% anyway"...

Wonder if that is with the flap STC.

Hate to step down to 100 mph cruise. Maybe I should just buy a Maule

Tim

I seem to recall that the PA12 has a difference angle of incidence on the wings. not as good as the 18 for STOL work. Tailfeathers may be different (smaller) too. Also, stock, the 12 came with a 100-horse O-235, & has different gear- sorta like the Pacer has. Lots of 12's modified to 150 (or more) horsepower, as well as to 18-style gear.

I learned to fly in a PA-12. Even without flaps it does pretty well. They slip like they invented it, used to slip it til the tailwheel was in the grass then kick it out, priceless.

Yes, the AOI is not the same as a SC and the gear is different, still it will always be one of my favorites.

I have owned a SC with VG's, have flown Brian's old 12 and now occasionally fly a 12 on floats-skis which is 150hp with flaps, neither was yellow, all are great planes. I try not to push the limits, so either would do the job for me, but can say I enjoy the 12 because of the extra room (both 12's had the seaplane door, which was a big plus for entry). The 12 would definately be one of the planes on my short list if I did not need to carry three people, plus outboard motor and the kitchen sink. I think flaps would be nice, but would guess adding those would pricey if you hired it done.

Steve

You getting a 2nd plane Tim? Pretty hard to beat a 182 spam can. Do this to yours.

I've owned both a PA 12 and a PA 18, though my PA 12 was mostly stock.

The big difference in the two airplanes is width of fuselage at the "waist" and the angle of incidence of the wing. The 12 has a different angle of incidence, and unless you mess with that, you'll never QUITE perform with a Super Cub, even with flaps, same HP, etc, etc, etc.

And, there are a LOT of etc's to make a 12 even close to an 18. The gear is different, and the 18 gear is much more robust, for example. The 12 did not have aerodynamically balanced elevators, the 18 does, etc, etc.

One advantage the 12 has is better ailerons, though.

A highly modified 12 is a great airplane. Then again, so is the 18. One other advantage of the 18 is that you can legally increase the Gross Weight to 2000 pounds with a Wipaire stc. The 12 can go to 1935 on floats, but I don't think that applies to wheels, and 12's tend to be heavier than 18s.

Either one is a great airplane, without doubt.

One more thing: a lot of folks buy a 12 based on the fact that the back seat is certified for two people, so it's a three seat airplane. First, double check the weights, as noted above. Second, try fitting two "normal" size people in that back seat, and then keep them there for more than a half hour or so.....you may convince them that they never want to fly with you again.

Good luck in your search. There are some great 12's and some great 18s out there nowadays.

MTV

Deleted.

GMDV

There is a great article in the History of Aviation in Idaho booklet about the last flight for one of the major outfits way back when. They were using a PA-12 for most of their work back then. Took stuff into and out of almost everywhere. I flew a J-5 for several years which I believe is what was referred to earlier as a Fat Cub. I remember wishing I could afford a PA-12. It is the same airframe with more power, TWO wing tanks, and lectic stuff. Never had any problems getting the J-5 in short, just knew that I had know if there was enough strip to get it out since it only had 85 hp. It is often humorous how many mods people think will make up for poor pilotage.
I should know, I spent a shit load on my 170 and it flew better before all the stuff I hung on it.
Ah, the price we pay for the fantasy of taking off a "few" feet shorter, specially when most males are looking for a little longer performance. Ha.

Most of all be safe.

Chris

PS: PM me if you want a copy of the mentioned article. I used to be able to copy them at will when I was working, can only afford a few these days.

No sense in a guy who built and flies a modified -12 cluttering up the thread with actual information and pireps. Mine does what I want it to.

Hey Tim
I think someone may have mentioned these in this or another thread. here's a link. http://www.mykitlog.com/Rick%20Davis Looks pretty cool. Don't know what they cost, if you could find one?? But sounds like a good performer, room for you/Tipsy, camping gear, and the crape machine.
Still think your plane w/a Pponk/maybe a little larger tires????, will do what you seem to enjoy, very well.

Don't know if you are thinking of a second plane or a replacemant for the one you have, but it seems if it is a replacement, you might be dissappointed. You like to do a fair amount of travelling. There seems to be know doubt the Cubs are as much fun as any plane out there. As a second plane, great. But a lot of folks say they are painfully slow if you are wanting to get somewhere. Limited space for the comforts.

Gary

Tim-

I would just buy a Maule.....

SB--

why would anybody want facts... if he wanted Facts he would just buy a Maule.....

Hottshot wrote:Tim-

I would just buy a Muale.....

Hottshot,

Your know we are going to get crap saying that! Least you can do is spell it right!

Skystrider wrote:

Hottshot wrote:Tim-

I would just buy a Muale.....

Hottshot,

Your know we are going to get crap saying that! Least you can do is spell it right!

damn fat fingers on a little Droid keyboard

The truth with all PA-12s that have been modified from stock is that they're all different. I can't think of another aircraft model that has as wide a variation in performance in the fleet than PA-12s.That makes any general discussion of modified PA-12s difficult. I know 6 other guys with modified PA-12s and none is like mine although they probably achieve generally similar overall performance, that being just shy of Supercub performance. The most interesting point of discussion among PA-12 owners is in CG since there are several engine mounts available for horsepower increases. Probably the most telling test is to lift the planes with lifting rings and watch how the tails behave as the airplane comes off the mains. Mine has the tail come up to just shy of flight attitude. Those planes with long mounts have the tails lift high in the air before the mains come off the ground. Clearly those planes require aft loading to balance properly or the tail has to work to stay down. Neither approach is right or wrong, just different, and they serve different requirements. Supercubs will not see variations between planes to the same extent. In my opinion a PA-12 is an empty canvas and can be made to be what the builder wants, and as a former PA-12 builder I can tell you that it's difficult to make all the decisions you're faced with. I like my PA-12 and would build it the same way if I was to do it again. I dream about Doug Keller's semi Fowler flaps. On my plane that could make a solid difference but I doubt they'll be legal on a certified -12 anytime soon. One friend of mine has a highly modified -12 in the experimental category and added SQ2 slats. It's a great performer but now he's looking to shorten his mount like mine to move the CG aft and improve the effectiveness of the slats. An Anchorage 135 operator has a 180hp -12 that has Supercub wings. That's a great performer, too. There are lot of good -12s out there and lots of ways taken to make them what they are. To praise a PA-12 a guy needs to qualify what he's praising. And so it goes with criticism as well.

Merry Christmas.

stewartb wrote:No sense in a guy who built and flies a modified -12 cluttering up the thread with actual information and pireps. Mine does what I want it to.

Stewart,

What's the story about those big paw prints pointing to your plane?

Moose tracks moving away from the river. My dog likes to play big game tracker so try to land where she has something to occupy herself.