18" Pans? Too Big? How Often Used? Fit In Standard Oven

Decorating By CakeDiva73 Updated 12 May 2008 , 2:35pm by CakeDiva73

CakeDiva73 Posted 10 May 2008 , 4:46pm
post #1 of 23

I am ordering pans and am stuck at the 18" square and round pans...I measured my oven and the rack is 17.5" deep so I think the pan would just fit with the door closed. I have a double oven and it would only fit on the bottom but I am wondering if anyone uses these sizes in their standard home ovens?

This particular site doesn't offer the half pan for the 18" round - only the full? Should I wait and get the 1/2 pan later? Also, the 18" square is HUGE and costs $35.....how often does this size get used? I notice even in some of the more popular books that show cutting guides and serving charts, the 18" square isn't even listed so I wondered if it was pretty rare that it is used? thanks icon_smile.gif

22 replies
hellie0h Posted 10 May 2008 , 5:56pm
post #2 of 23

I had just received my 18" fat daddio square pan from Global Sugar Art....$24.29. I can't believe I never thought about my oven size...sure enough after reading your post, I put the pan in and it DOES NOT FIT. The convection fan plus the overhang on the pan itself makes it impossible for me to bake in my home oven.
Glad you posted your question, would have hated to have a cake ready to bake and ran into this problem. Now, will have to find a commercial kitchen to let me bake the cake I will need for June.
I only ordered that size pan because a lady wants me to do her wedding cake for 200, but only wants 3 tiers.

Audraj Posted 10 May 2008 , 6:18pm
post #3 of 23

The 18" comes in a 1/2 pan for that reason. I can "just" get a 16" pan in my oven. The last oven I had couldn't hold a 16" even.

I would suggest you return the 18" pan and buy an 18" half pan.

cathyscakes Posted 10 May 2008 , 6:43pm
post #4 of 23

I had bought a beautiful stainless steel confection oven, absolutely loved it until I tried to fit my 18" pan in. Of course it didn't fit. I couldn't believe it because the range is huge, but the oven is small, so you really need to be careful. Its so maddening, because I have to run to my friends house every time I use this pan.

moxey2000 Posted 10 May 2008 , 6:45pm
post #5 of 23

Even if the pan will 'just fit' into your oven it's still too big. You need 2" on each side of the pan for even heat distribution and cooking. I agree with Audraj, order the half pan.

redpanda Posted 10 May 2008 , 6:48pm
post #6 of 23

Don't forget that the pan needs to not only fit, but allow some room around all sides for hot air to circulate. I strongly recommend against using a pan that can fit because you have the space between the rack and the door.

There was a post last month where somebody had the bottom of the cake burn while the top wasn't cooked all the way because of this situation.

CakeDiva73 Posted 10 May 2008 , 6:55pm
post #7 of 23

Well crud...... that's what I figured! Do they sell a half pan for squares, lol? Or do you just use sheet cakes to create the oversized square bases, if necessary? thanks

CakeRN Posted 10 May 2008 , 7:13pm
post #8 of 23

We are getting ready to remodel our kitchen and I had looked at the convection ovens too and thought they looked really small. The electolux wall ovens are only about 13.5 inches deep so that would knock out using a 14 inch pan. Convection ovens are great but to loose the extra area in your oven....well I am not sure I want to give that up. I may just go with a big professional style range with one oven then try a convection oven maybe in the island.

leah_s Posted 10 May 2008 , 7:18pm
post #9 of 23

On the chance that I might ever have to make an 18" square, I would butt four 9" squares together. I just personally wouldn't buy and store a pan that I thought I'd seldom use if there was any other option. But that's just me. icon_smile.gif

CakeDiva73 Posted 10 May 2008 , 7:32pm
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahs

On the chance that I might ever have to make an 18" square, I would butt four 9" squares together. I just personally wouldn't buy and store a pan that I thought I'd seldom use if there was any other option. But that's just me. icon_smile.gif




well duh!! icon_redface.gif That one never ocurred to me, lol. Great idea, thanks. As part of the order, I decided to make sure I had double pans for any pan smaller then 9" (for squares) and I have doubles for all my rounds up to 12".

Audraj Posted 10 May 2008 , 7:38pm
post #11 of 23

When I had to do a 16 inch square I just baked a bunch of 8 inch cakes and put them all together to make the 16 inch square. Don't forget to put icing where you join the cakes together.

No one could tell and it worked fine.

hellie0h Posted 10 May 2008 , 10:45pm
post #12 of 23

Good Lord....talk about a "blonde moment", or in my case, now a gray moment...I have the smaller square pans, why didn't I even think about using them and putting them together!!!! I swear, the older I get the more complicated I try to make things. Hmmm, wonder if the return shipping on the 18" pan will cost more than the pan itself. Lesson learned...thanks ladies.

CakeDiva73 Posted 11 May 2008 , 12:07am
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellie0h

Good Lord....talk about a "blonde moment", or in my case, now a gray moment...I have the smaller square pans, why didn't I even think about using them and putting them together!!!! I swear, the older I get the more complicated I try to make things. Hmmm, wonder if the return shipping on the 18" pan will cost more than the pan itself. Lesson learned...thanks ladies.




LOL, sell it on ebay....then you don't have to pay return shipping. icon_smile.gif

CakeDiva73 Posted 11 May 2008 , 12:11am
post #14 of 23

icon_rolleyes.gif Maybe the reason we didn't gravitate to the 8"/9" pan thing was because it would take 8 cakes to make a two layer 16 or 18" cake!! Which is alot of baking if you have two pans but if you only have one, holy cow!

For big bakeries with tons of pans and commercial ovens, it's sort of a no brainer. Anyway, I was sure to order two 9 and two 8 inch square pans so I could create the cake layers I needed just in case. What I saved on the 18", I spent ordering the second pans of the other sizes - oh well.

indydebi Posted 11 May 2008 , 1:59am
post #15 of 23

What sizes were you going to use with the 18" pan to make 200 servings?

I would think a 3-tier cake with an 18" bottom would look "squat". Any idea why the bride is stuck on a 3-tier cake? Most brides I talk with are delighted to find out they can have 4 or even 5 tiers with their headcount.

leah_s Posted 11 May 2008 , 2:07am
post #16 of 23

Maybe the bride is really short? And doesn't want to be overpowered by her cake? I try to always take the bride's height into consideration when designing her cake.

indydebi Posted 11 May 2008 , 2:26am
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahs

Maybe the bride is really short? And doesn't want to be overpowered by her cake? I try to always take the bride's height into consideration when designing her cake.




omg, i never thought of that aspect. very interesting observation. thumbs_up.gif

hellie0h Posted 11 May 2008 , 3:06am
post #18 of 23

Bride isn't short, she wants it simple...fondant drape and fondant roses for topper. Everything has to be edible, no wires ect.
When I was approached by her MIL to be, I told her I wasn't doing cakes anymore, just family freebies. I don't like the stress with paid orders.
Long story short, she talked me into it. Met with the bride, nice young lady and all but was very sure what she wanted in a cake, I tried telling her for 200 servings a 4 tier would be better, she wouldn't have it...I only want three.....go figure.
Now I have went to the expense of buying a huge pan that I find I can't use in my oven. The cake is planned at double layer 18" 14" and 10" comes out to be about 310 servings, they get 110 servings free.
All because my brain must have been on holiday or something when I was figuring out sizes. I orginally was going to use 14, 12 and 10, about 220 servings, but I have read on here that 2" between tiers does not make a good appearance. Do any of you ladies have an opinion on 2" size diff?

indydebi Posted 11 May 2008 , 4:20am
post #19 of 23

Lots of cakes are done with the 2" diff ...

This one is 8/10/12/14/16: http://www.cakecentral.com/modules.php?name=gallery&file=displayimage&pid=93760

This is 6/8/10/12: http://www.cakecentral.com/modules.php?name=gallery&file=displayimage&pid=1156793

This is 6/8/10/14: http://www.cakecentral.com/modules.php?name=gallery&file=displayimage&pid=93735

A 10" top tier is going to look odd, to me. That's a pretty big cake.

If the configuration comes out to 310 pcs, then she pays for 310 pcs. You will rarely, if ever, come up with a pan configuration that is a perfect 100 or 200. You come up with 2 configurations (like one for 188 and one for 225) and ask her "which one do you want to pay for ... slighlty more or slightly less?"

What chart are you using? A 14/12/10 will serve 172. http://www.wilton.com/wedding/cakeinfo/cakedata.cfm

A 16/12/10 will serve will serve 194.
A 16/14/9 will serve 210.

How many people did she invite? Usually 60% of the total number invited will actually show up. So did she invite around 325 people?

hellie0h Posted 11 May 2008 , 4:54am
post #20 of 23

I got this equation for SQUARE double layer cake servings from someone here at CC. By taking half of the pan size and multiply by the pan size. Example 14" pan half of which is 7...multiply 7x14=98 servings. Maybe I should not believe everything I read lol.
What I really would like to do is a 14, 10 and 6 and a side cake to bring serving size up to 200.
The bride said she invited 200, and you are right about the percentage of people that do show up.
Debi, I am timid as hell when dealing with people. I have no backbone for business. I am a wimp and have only myself to blame. I will give her a call and see what compromise we can come to.
Thanks for the info links.

indydebi Posted 11 May 2008 , 5:29am
post #21 of 23

Oh I'm sorry .... missed it somewhere it was square cakes!!

If she INVITED 200, she's going to have a LOT of cake leftover! NOBODY has a 100% show rate. I'll bet even Jenna Bush had some no-shows today!

leah_s Posted 11 May 2008 , 12:14pm
post #22 of 23

The 2" dimension difference is what's been shown by the top designers for the last 7-8 years. It produces a "tower" effect. It is definitely the most popular look online and inthe nm=magazines. I'd say most of what I do is a 2" or 3" dimensional difference.

And I have to say I ALWAYS use a 6" for the top. That's the size that pre-made cake toppers are sized to and what florists expect if they're creating a floral topper.

CakeDiva73 Posted 12 May 2008 , 2:35pm
post #23 of 23

Well, that is if you are using a serving that is 2 square inches of cake.....now just to complicate things, when I am figuring servings, I use a ratio of 2.25 square inches for wedding servings and 3.27 for party (birthday, etc.) servings.

I think the 2" is a 1 x 2 x 4" high piece, which is Wilton sizing. I felt it was a bit small but many of the professionals (I am not) here feel it is appropriate so go with it.

As for the 2" difference, I don't think it's bad. The only thing I wasn't crazy about in your story was that (it sounds like) you are doing this cake for free but still had to buy a huge pan???? icon_smile.gif

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%