Cub conversion

[Fly Stimulator]

One of my aviation fantasies on these dark winter evenings is pottering around sunny farm strips in a classic machine of real character.

In particular, a Cub.

I've never flown a taildragger before, so that would be an interesting challenge in its own right.

I have a couple of questions:

1) Is the Cub a good machine to start taildragging on?

2) Any recommendations on schools to go to? I could do it at Redhill (which is handy for me), but I rather like the sound of the Clacton course which combines the Cub convestion with some farm strip flying. Are there any other places which do something similar?

[Oscar Duece]

You don't want a cub, not really.

You want a British Auster. Much more useful and cheaper..

[QDMQDMQDM]

One of my aviation fantasies on these dark winter evenings is pottering around sunny farm strips in a classic machine of real character

Ah, FS, now you're talking!

Surprisingly, enough I will say that the Cub family represent a wonderful and forgiving group of aircraft on which to do a tailwheel conversion, but with enough 'bite' to keep you on your toes.

I have to be polite about Austers because I am merely tolerated in my cub at my home base by a large brigade of unwashed Auster pilots, however...

Austers are noisier, less reliable (with the Gipsy or Cirrus), more maintenance hungry, much thirstier of fuel and oil and trickier to land.

Choose the Cub. Isn't there one at Old Sarum?

QDM

BTW, the heater is very good and one of the joys of cub flying is being up on fine winter days too.

[LowNSlow]

QDMx3 I know you expect this:

My 100hp Auster is as frugal with fuel and oil as my 65hp Cub was more or less and it's 20 mph faster. I can still get into and out of the strips I used when Cubbing as well.

Noisier, most definitely noisier outside but pretty much the same inside. Should be quieter when I eventually get around to fitting the muffler.....

More maintenance hungry in terms of having to adjust the tappets every 25 hours but that's about it.

I haven't really noticed that the Auster is that much harder to land than the Cub. It's a real paint to taxi in a crosswind with no steerable tailwheel though.

I think that Cubs are overpriced and Austers are underpriced (which worked well for me when I swapped my L4 for the Auster :D :D

[Kingy]

Rising to the bait...

The Auster is british made but was designed by CG Taylor - the same guy who designed the Cub. It's a beefed up Taylorcraft with a British engine and a silly castoring tailwheel.

Cheeper - I dont think so!

Initial cost may be lower, but those in-line engines cost a fortune to overhaul and gulp fuel and oil.

The vast majority of Austers are on C of A rather than a PFA permit - more expensive

Airframe parts are much more expensive for the Auster.

What you want is a L4 Cub. £15k gets you a genuine warbird on a PFA permit for around £20ph wet. The engine is an icon of light aviation for sweet running and reliability, yet it can be overhauled more cheaply than any certified aero engine.

More importantly, in the summer you can open the door and watch the countryside float by - what could be better than that!

Back to the question... Yes, the Cub would be an ideal aircraft for a tailwheel conversion - It's THE original trainer afterall! :D

Kingy

(L&S jumped in before me - I was responding to oscar d. L&S's Auster is one of the few on a Permit I think, so not so bad..)

What happened to our Cub and Auster Fly in? perhaps we could settle this thing with a Tug 'o' war or somthing....:D

Read this and tell me you don't want one... (http://airbum.com/pireps/ClassicCompCub.html)

Kingy

[AerBabe]

Nah... you should do the conversion in a chipmunk! ;)
If you want to do a farmstrip course, but not at Clacton, it's worth asking around FIs, as some will be more than willing to do one unofficially. It's something I intend to do eventually with my chipmunk instructor, either in the chippie or a C152, or both. I have heard the Clacton course is great, but at the moment it's not practical for me to get there. And I have no money. :(

[Flyin'Dutch']

Only flown an Auster once and found the landings not as difficult as I had anticipated but still prefer the Cub by a fair margin.

I prefer the tandem seating as it is such good fun when flying low-n-slow.

Love the ability to open the door when it is warm or just want to show off.

Admire the handling so much better than the Auster.

They fetch premium prices and once you have flown one you know just why.

I recently have flown quite a bit on a Citabria and have to say that this is even easier to handle compared to the Cub and apart from the door issue is just as much fun as the Cub. (You can take the door off of course but then cant take it with you)

Ah roll on those summer evenings!

FD

When is this Auster-Cub fly in? (Just seen that Aerbabe has posted to this thread as well! Yes Chippy is good fun too but still not as nice as Cub)

[Fly Stimulator]

Thanks for that link Kingy.

I loved the quote:
It's entirely possible to land in a wind which is too high to taxi in. In that case, keep the nose into the wind and wait for help to walk you in. More than one pilot has had to coast past the hangars at fifty feet with the door open and the throttle back while yelling for help before landing.

That's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind - real flying! :p

[nonradio]

I think there's nothing more to add ( except that Taylor was born of British stock) so just get on with it!
Check your pvt messages.:D

[Crossedcontrols]

Haven't I read all this Auster V Cub stuff before ?

The bottom line is you will have more chance being able to hire a Cub than an Auster.

Be aware the J3 Cub is a bit different from the 150 Super Cub.

But do it, old taildraggers are the biz.

CC

[Oscar Duece]

Ok so I though I would stick up for the lovely Auster... But did'nt mean to throw the topic off.

Realistically. Unless you want to travel all the way to Wickenby to sample the delights of an Auster. Then you will likely end up on a cub. I have heard some very, very good things about Clacton Aero club. 'Great Fun', 'Very Freindly' and even 'Value for Money'.

But as someone said. They use super cubs (Pa18-150). These are a bit different from the £ 15 K J3/L4 machines you might buy.

Just don't do what a someone I know done. He just went for the nearest / cheapest and ended up doing it in a tailwheel Cessna 150. !. Why oh Why.

:O

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The latest issue of 'AOPA' mag has an article on the Chippy by David Ogilvy. He votes it the best handling production light aeroplane of all time. Having flown one for over 20 years, as well as very many other light aircraft, I wouldn't argue with that.

The Yak52 has amazing performance and razor-sharp controls - but it somehow isn't as 'nice' as the Chippy.

The L4 Cub is great fun for all the reasons mentioned in this thread - I loved the one I used to fly.

I would say the Super Cub lacks the 'fun factor' of the L4, as does the Citabria. The Tiger Moth is awful, except that it's an open-cockpit biplane so has loads of character; the Stampe is what the Tiger should have been but isn't. Never flown an Auster.

But for sheer delight in handling - the Chippy wins every time. IMHO, of course ;~)


SSD

[Flyin'Dutch']

OD

I am sure that the person you know is grateful that you did not mention any names.

:D

The taildragger version of the 150 truly has to be the biggest d@g I have ever flown.

The instructor at the club that was operating it at the time told me beforehand that I would not enjoy it.

Stubborn as I am I wanted to try it anyway.

He was right. Awful.

Out of all the tailwheel aircraft I have flown the worst by far.

FD

(MHO of course :eek: )

[BlueRobin]

Been on the Clacton course. Thoroughly recommend it. It's a good introduction to tailwheel flying. Tuition is "cheap" at around £90/hr on the Cub. Accommodation is around £12/night if you stay at the airfield manager's B&B.

Farmstrip course is probably the best 2-3 hours flying you'll spend.
There's something extremely sadistic about hurtling towards a farmer's hedge at 60 knots and hopping over it... :)

[LowNSlow]

Kingy my Auster is on a C of A I'm afraid. Practically speaking it doesn't make a whole lot of difference as most of the maintenance on both my Cub (PFA) and the Auster is done by a friendly engineer. I do the not-so-technical stuff which is inspected and signed off (this is legal by the way) and he does the nitty gritty stuff. This is partly why I haven't seen any real difference between operating a Cub and a 100hp Auster (the 130/145hp Gipsy engined ones would be more on a par with a 150hp Supercub).

The Cub, as much as I loved it, didn't feel as "solid" as the Auster. I also wanted to take my 4 year old daughter flying and side-by-side is better for this than a tandem layout.

I've never flown a SuperCub so I can't comment on them. However, as Oscar Deuce pointed out, you are far more likely to end up on a SuperCub cos there are far more of them.

[Kingy]

Low'n'Slow

I can see that if you have an engineer doing all the maintenance the cost advantage of having a PFA permit is much reduced.

To those of us who like 'having a go' at things mechanical however, the permit system is brilliant. Last year we TOHed an A65 and we have just finished a VW 1834 overhaul for the FRED, - all under the watchful eye of an inspector I might add, it's been very rewarding.

I had assumed the Auster was on a permit as it's a small one. I must add that the extra 'solid' feeling of an Auster comes at a price... My Taylorcraft BC12 manages the same 20MPH advantage over the Cub with the same engine!

I have flown a Super Cub and was disappointed, I didn’t like the flaps and thought the controls seemed a little 'dumbed down'. As for soloing from the front seat... couldn’t get used to that!

I would love to have a go in your little Auster though, as it's the one I'd want (but on a permit) out of the Auster family. Fancy trading rides?

Kingy

[MLS-12D]

SSD,

I've never seen a British copy in person, but from photos of RAF versions of the DHC-1 it appears that they have a rather clunky-looking canopy rather than the beautiful original (Canadian) model. Is that correct? Any ideas why?

Cheers,

MLS-12D

[Philip Whiteman]

MLS-12D: the bubble canopy fitted to the Canadian DHC-1 is very pretty, isn't it (we published a very nice Gordon Bain photograph of a yellow RCAF Chippie, sat amid a field of buttercups, in the February issue of General Aviation SSD was referring to).

My understanding was that the RAF and MoS were concerned that escape from an inverted, bubble-canopy Chipmunk would be very difficult. The British 'glasshouse' design had jettisonable side panels that allowed the occupants to wriggle out, even if the canopy was jammed. (There might have been some other concern that venting the sliding hood thus would allow it to be forced open at high airspeed - I am less sure about that.)

In civilian operation, those jettisonable panels can be a menace. After small boys had accidently - or even deliberately - released them through 'pulling the wrong handle', they were wired shut in the example I used to fly from Booker. Of course, when someone else had a wing-shedding accident in the thing, they had a job getting out of the updside-down fuselage...

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Of course, when someone else had a wing-shedding accident in the thing, they had a job getting out of the updside-down fuselage...

Eeek! I didn't know a Chippy had ever suffered mid-air failure, PW. Any details??

The side windows of the Chippy's canopy are wired shut to prevent inadvertant use, but in an emergency the wire is broken by rotating the release lever. The window then drops out and some pilots slimmer than me can crawl out through it - it's for use if the aeroplane ends up inverted on the ground, or if the canopy jams for any reason.

The airflow around the Chipmunk canopy tends to hold it shut in flight (as anyone who has tried to open it for photography or fresh air will know!). To aid rapid opening at speed for a parachute departure (not an option in our aeroplane - we dont have them) pulling a toggle in the roof flips up a 'spade' into the airflow to help slide the canopy back on the rails.

SSD

[LowNSlow]

Kingy I'd love to trade rides especially in the aircraft that spawned the Auster.

Point taken about the extra 35hp needed by the Auster to maintain pace with the Taylorcraft ;)

Unfortunately very few Austers are on a Permit. The CAA seems to be moving towards the Permit system being purely for kit built aircraft now. As I understand it (I may be wrong, I've been wrong many times before ;) ) one cannot import a Cub, Jodel etc and put it on a PFA Permit now. :mad:

[Philip Whiteman]

SSD: whoops! I didn't mean to imply that our old Chippie broke up in the air: it took a couple of stout trees to remove the wings, during an abortive attempt to get out from a small strip. That accident left the fuselage intact, but upside-down. The two occupants (who were virtually uninjured) had a job getting out - I now remember - because the release wire and locking pins you mention had been replaced with a set of nuts and bolts (because of the small boy problem!)

Back to the point; the Chipmunk really is a delight in terms of its handling. I'd love to get in a few more hours on one...

[MLS-12D]

Many thanks for the explanation, Philip.

[Kingy]

L&S

Yes, the CAA stopped certified aircraft from obtaining a PFA permit to fly a few years ago now... much to the disapproval of the PFA.

Aircraft already on the scheme will remain though. I believe that only the smaller Austers were allowed on and then only for 2 seats.

Where are you based? as you are very welcome to have a go in the T-cart. Its a very efficient plane that glides like crazy and will float the lenth of a runway unless the approach speed is well nailed. Couple this with a surprisingly sharp stall and you have an aircraft that demands full attention in the curcuit - much more than a Cub.

Try to make the Auster-Cub fly-in (whenever it is!). I'll probably bring the L4, but we can talk about meeting up for the T-Cart-Auster comparison - It would be interesting!

Kingy

[FlyingForFun]

I did my tail-wheel conversion on the Super Cub, and it's a fabulous machine. Still never flown a Cub, but I'm sure it would be perfect to convert onto.

The most important thing when doing a tail-dragger conversion, IMHO, is the quality of the instructor. If your instructor doesn't intend to teach you wheel-landings as well as 3-pointers, go somewhere else. If your instructor doesn't have at least 100 hours of tail-wheel time, including lots of recent time, go somewhere else. I say this having ignored that advice when I did my conversion, and paid the penalty. I used an extremely good instructor - I would recommend her to anyone doing a PPL, and I intend to do my IMC rating with her. But she'd only recently done a tail-wheel conversion herself, and she was not the right person to be teaching me those skills. So much so that, after getting signed off and building my Super Cub time up to around 10 hours, I then went to hire a Super Cub from another school, and needed a further 7 hours instruction before they'd let me hire their planes. Yes - 7 hours on a type I was already current on. It wasn't wasted at all - I learnt far more in those 7 hours than I had on my original check-out.

I'd also recommend having a read of The Compleat Taildragger Pilot by Harvey S Plourde (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0963913700/qid%3D1044550753/202-6525991-1008645) - an excellent book which explains everything that's going on with very simple diagrams, and only goes into the details of the maths in an appendix.

Apart from that, have fun! :D :D :D If you search back to around October 2001, you might find a post where I described my first Super Cub flight, which should inpsire you!

FFF
------------

[Flyin'Dutch']

FFF wrote:

So much so that, after getting signed off and building my Super Cub time up to around 10 hours, I then went to hire a Super Cub from another school, and needed a further 7 hours instruction before they'd let me hire their planes.

:eek:

That is a lot of hours. Can you tell us what bits had been missed out in the first place.

FD

[FlyingForFun]

FD,

Wheel landings. Fast taxying (which is a requirement for being able to do wheel landings consistently and safely). Wheel landings. Cross-wind landings. Wheel landings. Slipping (using full rudder, while turning - not just a little bit of rudder to lose 50' on final). Wheel landings. Flying airliner-size circuits. Generally flying like an airliner, for example my lack of willingness to use full aileron deflection.

Basically, apart from the fact I hadn't been taught wheel landings, the main issue was that I was flying the Cub like a PA28 with the third wheel in the back. The Cub is a very different beast, and although it's quite happy to be flown the way that students are taught to fly PA28s, to restrict yourself to this style of flying prevents you from taking full advantage of the aircraft. And having the skill to fly it properly could well get you out of trouble in a cross-wind (and made some of the landings I did look easy, when I certainly would have ground-looped had I tried them without that training).

FFF
-----------

PS - The training must have worked. When I got a few hours on the club's Aztec a month or so later, my instructor accused me of trying to fly the Aztec like a Cub - quite a change from being accused of flying the Cub like a 747!!!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Years ago I was on holiday in Guernsey and hired a PA38 to tour the islands. On the check flight, landing back at Guernsey, I flared and did a fully held-off landing. The instructor wondered what the heck I was doing; "no need to pull it that far", he said.

Since the check had gone well (including a nice landing) and I didn't want to prolong it with 'demonstrations of how it should be done' I didn't argue, simply saying "it's because I fly taildraggers".

But I did note that his comment may indicate why we see so many snapped-off nosegears on tricycle aeroplanes in the AAIB reports every month.

SSD

[Philip Whiteman]

My old flying instructor, Tony Ryan, used to have me pull so hard on the yoke of the 150/152 I was training on that it used to feel like the panel was going to be wrenched onto my lap. He knew that I was going straight on to the family Cub, as soon as I had my PPL, so he really drummed the tail-down hold-off thing into me.

Interesting to watch other, non-Ryan, students skimming onto the ground at high speed, then all but tipping on their noses with the faintest gust of wind or (self-induced) swerve on the runway. The wheelbarrow boys...

Tony's instruction must have been good, because my tailwheel and type conversion (courtesy of my father) was two hour-long dual sessions. My first solo flights in the L-4 followed a further quarter hour of dual, during which I still didn't break anything!

[tacpot]

Northants School of Flying at Sywell have an excellent 90hp Super-Cub, and excellect Instructors. Accomodation on the airfield is not as cheap as at Clacton, but is very good.

[LowNSlow]

Kingy I'm based at Rush Green (under Lutons approach) and this is where the Auster is slowly getting put back together after her Star Annual. Once she's up and running again we can arrane a meet.

[FNG]

I did my tailwheel conversion on an L4 cub (although my first taildragger "landing" was on a Tiger Moth), and greatly enjoyed flying theCub. I had just bought an aerobatic tailwheel aircraft with two friends, both of whom are instructors with zillions of taildragging hours, and they recommended that I check out on the Cub first, as, they saif, it shows more pronounced and "generic" taildragger characteritics than some other types. I would echo the recommendation that you find an instructor who is a tailwheeel pilot, rather than an instructor with a tailwheel checkout, to show you how it's done. Have fun.

[Crossedcontrols]

Ther's a J3 Cub at the Rural Flying Corps at Bourn. The instructor is Lindsey Brown Has a great reputation, I think he is an Instructors instrutor, and a taildragger pilot.

http://www.rfcbourn.flyer.co.uk/

CC