Great looking plane! Wow! I bet you are proud of that!

River rat wrote:Has anyone flown a PA14 with a 180horse engine I was wondering how comparable it would be to a supercub with the same load. I believe its the same wing and tail but less angle of incidence.

This is a real old thread, but I noticed that there are three PA-14s (not 180 hp) on Barnstormers. This seems unusual.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... uiser.html

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... PA-14.html

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... PA-14.html

How is the PA-14 working for you River Rat?

I really like it! It will operate cub strips with a cub load quite comfortably and haul an impressive load when you have a little more runway!
It won't quite slow up on final like a cub but its frickin close maybe three mph just enough you can notice it when trying to land some where short, it runs out of elivator at the last second. The only VGs STC has the spades on the sides in front of the horizontal I wonder if the ones under the tail in front of the elivator would b better?
My only other complaint is with the 180 stc it needs a header tank or something it will suck air in certain situations with almost 1/4 tank left, it never does it somewhere handy!
But better mpg than a cub it's faster it outclimbs it and has more room, what's not to love?

I've read more than once that the angle of incidence is the only significant difference that is responsible for the small performance gap between the PA-14 and PA-18. Same wing, tail, etc.other than the wider fuselage and whatever empty weight difference.

It SEEMS obvious that one of the big Cub builders would simply come up with an STC to bring the PA-14's incidence into line with the Cub, and eliminate that little performance gap. This is all really straightforward steel tube and welded tab kind of stuff. Way way less complex than many other modifications. It's really a rigging STC, not a major aerodynamic change. With a small and reasonable amount of flight test, I'd think even the FAA would not put up that much of a stink.

What am I missing here?

I think the biggest issue is no one is really interested in persuing STCs for a plane that there are only a couple hundred of in the world. All the StCs seem to be ones they could lump in with the pa12 as its a much closer relitive than the 18, that being said the 12 could use the angle of incidence increase as well.
I know of guys doing it on experimental 12s and it helps but still is not an 18 they say.

By the way the flaps are actually a little bigger than a cub I can't remember how much I measured once but I'm not sure if they deflect quite as much just eyeballing them.
Speaking of STCs its quite a bit slipperier than a cub and I think it would b pretty fast with a different prop. I'd love to have an MT on it. Hint hint John!