Little Cubs - Info Needed
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Greystones, Ireland (but born a Kerryman!)
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF - it might be a wee bit more expensive to hire the SC, but can an europa do this?
*sigh*
Now if the wx would just clear up in Kerry tomorrow, I could actually go and do some flying, instead of just dreaming about it!
*sigh*
Now if the wx would just clear up in Kerry tomorrow, I could actually go and do some flying, instead of just dreaming about it!
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNG, that sounds like a fantastic idea! Guys, if we do go ahead with a Cub fly-in, you'll need to make sure you leave enough time for both FNG and myself to get checked out first...
EI, I love it! No, I can't do that in the Europa. It has a lovely powerful all-moving tailplane that would certainly be capable of lifting the tail off the ground given enough wind, but not without the prop making contact with the runway. Oh well 
FFF
-------------
EI, I love it!
No, I can't do that in the Europa. It has a lovely powerful all-moving tailplane that would certainly be capable of lifting the tail off the ground given enough wind, but not without the prop making contact with the runway. Oh well FFF
-------------
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bristol and Forest of Dean
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Just back from a lovely flight in the L4. Flew about like an 'idiot' for 40 minutes, climbed to 4500ft just for the hell of it and had stunning views of the Wye and the Severn. Did some stalls, tight turns and chandelles. Flew for 10 minutes hands and feet off marveling how it's possible to to change the trimmed speed +- 5mph just by leaning forward or back in the seat. Got back to the field and did a couple of greasers onto our new 'runway' 26 - it's 120m and has a 25% upslope .... absolute magic - I feel alive again!
Count me in for the fly in - might even have a seat going if there is anyone in my neck of the woods wants a ride.
Kingy
Just back from a lovely flight in the L4. Flew about like an 'idiot' for 40 minutes, climbed to 4500ft just for the hell of it and had stunning views of the Wye and the Severn. Did some stalls, tight turns and chandelles. Flew for 10 minutes hands and feet off marveling how it's possible to to change the trimmed speed +- 5mph just by leaning forward or back in the seat. Got back to the field and did a couple of greasers onto our new 'runway' 26 - it's 120m and has a 25% upslope .... absolute magic - I feel alive again!
Count me in for the fly in - might even have a seat going if there is anyone in my neck of the woods wants a ride.
Kingy
Last edited by Kingy; 18th Jan 2003 at 00:59.
Whilst not denying that the Cub in all it's forms is a splended flying machine, I also have a soft spot for a UK/US developed cub copy called an Easy Raider, still in production and to be found online at http://www.realityaircraft.com/
G
G
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Over the hedge... just!
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So that's settled then.
Where and when?
I suppose later on in the year would suit those having to get tail draggerd and or aircraft.
Well I'm game, might have a spare seat, depending on dates.
CC
There's many a slip twixt Cub and strip
Where and when?
I suppose later on in the year would suit those having to get tail draggerd and or aircraft.
Well I'm game, might have a spare seat, depending on dates.
CC
There's many a slip twixt Cub and strip
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where and when?
Perhaps if everyone puts in their location we could figure out a reasonable place to go. I'm at Eggesford.
QDM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Down the field!
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, a question for all you Cub drivers out there (I was going to start a new thread for this but I’ve decided to tag it on here instead… hope you don’t mind!)…. So, excuse my ignorance on this but can someone please give me a quick comparison between the Cub and an Auster? Are they similar in their flying qualities? Is one regarded higher than the other in the flying community? I know you lot are all cub pilots, but I’d appreciate your opinions either way! They both look like fantastic little aircraft to me…. All I need to do is get a tail wheel conversion! – Oh, and find a Cub or Auster to fly!
Thanks
Grob Driver
Thanks
Grob Driver
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooh, now you're talking. I fly a Super Cub out of Eggesford where there are more Austers based than anywhere else in the UK. I'd better be careful!
The Super Cub uses a Lycoming or a Continental, so less maintenance hungry and more reliable than a Gipsy Major, or especially a Cirrus. Also uses a fair bit less fuel / oil and gives less vibration / noise. Parts are cheaper and more available too.
Landing characteristics of the cub family are much more benign than Austers. Many people like the challenge Austers present, but they do present more of a challenge.
Cubs are tandem, Austers are side by side and will take three or even four people.
You can fly a cub with the door open.
Cubs are American, Austers are British.
Nothing in the world will beat a Super Cub for short field performance.
Cubs are more expensive than Austers. Some say their price is absurdly high, but the market dictates what the market dictates....
The one exception to most of the above characteristics is the Auster Mark IX, which is unlike any other Auster, but there are very few of them about, so I doubt it will be an issue for you.
Anyway, whichever you choose tailwheel is tailwheel -- much more fun than nosewheel. You'll never want to go back. Do it!
QDM
The Super Cub uses a Lycoming or a Continental, so less maintenance hungry and more reliable than a Gipsy Major, or especially a Cirrus. Also uses a fair bit less fuel / oil and gives less vibration / noise. Parts are cheaper and more available too.
Landing characteristics of the cub family are much more benign than Austers. Many people like the challenge Austers present, but they do present more of a challenge.
Cubs are tandem, Austers are side by side and will take three or even four people.
You can fly a cub with the door open.
Cubs are American, Austers are British.
Nothing in the world will beat a Super Cub for short field performance.
Cubs are more expensive than Austers. Some say their price is absurdly high, but the market dictates what the market dictates....
The one exception to most of the above characteristics is the Auster Mark IX, which is unlike any other Auster, but there are very few of them about, so I doubt it will be an issue for you.
Anyway, whichever you choose tailwheel is tailwheel -- much more fun than nosewheel. You'll never want to go back. Do it!
QDM
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bristol and Forest of Dean
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QDM
Just adding to your Auster facts...
Not all have British in-line engines, many have Lycomings - mostly the 0290.
Yes, they are British built but they are closely based on an American Taylorcraft design. In fact, the first aircraft were actually called Talorcraft plus D's. The name 'Auster' was coined by the British military I believe, and stuck.
The Taylor in Taylorcraft is the very same C.G Taylor that designed the original Taylor Cub in 1930. The story goes that whilst Tayor was off ill for a while in 1935, Bill Piper (Taylor's business partner and the marketing guy) had a 24 year old designer called Jamouneau restlyle the boxy E 2 Cub into the curvy J 2. Taylor was furious and the resulting showdown ended with Piper buying out Taylors's shares - this company became Piper as we know it today. Taylor set up Taylorcraft and set out to design an aircraft to beat the Cub - the model 'B'... (forerunner of the Auster)
Being the original 'bloke with too many planes' I also own a 1/3rd share in a 1941 Taylorcraft BC12 - this is like a light Auster with no flaps and an A 65 engine. It goes like the clappers (90+mph cruise) but has a less gentle stall than the Cub and the visibility out is god awful. I hardly ever fly it as I prefer the L4....
Kingy
Just adding to your Auster facts...
Not all have British in-line engines, many have Lycomings - mostly the 0290.
Yes, they are British built but they are closely based on an American Taylorcraft design. In fact, the first aircraft were actually called Talorcraft plus D's. The name 'Auster' was coined by the British military I believe, and stuck.
The Taylor in Taylorcraft is the very same C.G Taylor that designed the original Taylor Cub in 1930. The story goes that whilst Tayor was off ill for a while in 1935, Bill Piper (Taylor's business partner and the marketing guy) had a 24 year old designer called Jamouneau restlyle the boxy E 2 Cub into the curvy J 2. Taylor was furious and the resulting showdown ended with Piper buying out Taylors's shares - this company became Piper as we know it today. Taylor set up Taylorcraft and set out to design an aircraft to beat the Cub - the model 'B'... (forerunner of the Auster)
Being the original 'bloke with too many planes' I also own a 1/3rd share in a 1941 Taylorcraft BC12 - this is like a light Auster with no flaps and an A 65 engine. It goes like the clappers (90+mph cruise) but has a less gentle stall than the Cub and the visibility out is god awful. I hardly ever fly it as I prefer the L4....
Kingy
Last edited by Kingy; 19th Jan 2003 at 02:54.
Cub v Auster
Grob My last aeroplane was an L4 65hp Cub and my current mount is an Auster Autocrat with a 100hp Cirrus II so I'll try to expand the differences already mentioned by QDMx3 and Kingy.
THe original Auster was indeed a licence built Taylorcraft. However the ARB (forerunner of the CAA) reckoned it was too flimsy. The makers basically kept the same design but went up a size in all the tubing wall thicknesses etc. This gives the Auster a much more solid feel than the Cub. They are classically British in their over-engineering. Indeed they feel like they really were engineered to meet a requirement whereas the Cub feels like (and indeed was) built down to a price. Over the years there were redesigns around the basic airframe but with the exception of the AOP9 and the one-off AOP 11 they were pretty much the same airframes but with a variety of engines.
The Auster can be more of a handfull on the ground in a cross wind as most have free castoring tailwheels (what prat thought that one up) whereas Cubs have tailwheel steering. However, a lot of Austers (including mine) have had tailwheel steering retrofitted.
Landing the Auster is slightly more challenging than the Cub because, IMHO, the undercarriage is stiffer and the tyres are harder. This gives a harsher feel to the landing but it's not that much harder than a Cub. Most of the groundloops etc were caused by the aforementioned tailwheel.
In the cruise the Auster bops along at 95+ mph against the Cub's 70-75. That 20 mph makes a big difference if there's any kind of headwind. I disagree that the Cirrus is rougher than the Conti A-65, well, mine's as smooth as the A-65 in the Cub was and I've checked the balance on the props on both Cub and Auster and they were both OK. The engine is more maintenance intensive than the A-65 as you have to adjust the valve clearances every 25 hours. The Auster is definitely noisier as it has no silencer/muffler. Mine will soon though cos I was going deef!
To sum up after all that, most people think the Cub is more cute than the Auster and that's a factor in the price equation. The other factor is that spares for the Cub are easily available, including the engine, at a reasonable price. Auster airframe parts are available, also at a fairly reasonable price but engine spares, especially for the Cirrus, can be problematical. They can however be re-engined with the Lycoming 0-320 or 360 if required. Another factor is that they were the ubiquitous trainers of the 50's & 60's and were common as muck then. Finally, they suffered from the reputations of the later overweight Beagle models.
Personally I prefer the Auster as it is more robust and, although not as "chuckable" as the Cub due to higher control forces and not very effective ailerons, it's still loads of fun to whizz about in. My aircraft, if fitted with the correct seats, can be looped, rolled etc legally. It is stressed to +4.5/-2.5 g compared to the Cub's +3/-1.5 (I think). A further bonus is that all Austers have a perspex roof (some are fitted with dinky little blinds). The L4 has a clear panel roof but I find the J3's claustrophobic (I am 6' and 15 stone!) with their solid roof and small rear side windows. Although you can open the side of the Cub up in flight, you can slide the side windows of the Auster back as in the Mark 1 Minis and stick your elbow out for posing purposes
And finally (I can hear the sighs of relief), Auster is what the Romans called a light southerly wind. It was felt during WW2 that this fitted well with the likes of Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest etc.
THe original Auster was indeed a licence built Taylorcraft. However the ARB (forerunner of the CAA) reckoned it was too flimsy. The makers basically kept the same design but went up a size in all the tubing wall thicknesses etc. This gives the Auster a much more solid feel than the Cub. They are classically British in their over-engineering. Indeed they feel like they really were engineered to meet a requirement whereas the Cub feels like (and indeed was) built down to a price. Over the years there were redesigns around the basic airframe but with the exception of the AOP9 and the one-off AOP 11 they were pretty much the same airframes but with a variety of engines.
The Auster can be more of a handfull on the ground in a cross wind as most have free castoring tailwheels (what prat thought that one up) whereas Cubs have tailwheel steering. However, a lot of Austers (including mine) have had tailwheel steering retrofitted.
Landing the Auster is slightly more challenging than the Cub because, IMHO, the undercarriage is stiffer and the tyres are harder. This gives a harsher feel to the landing but it's not that much harder than a Cub. Most of the groundloops etc were caused by the aforementioned tailwheel.
In the cruise the Auster bops along at 95+ mph against the Cub's 70-75. That 20 mph makes a big difference if there's any kind of headwind. I disagree that the Cirrus is rougher than the Conti A-65, well, mine's as smooth as the A-65 in the Cub was and I've checked the balance on the props on both Cub and Auster and they were both OK. The engine is more maintenance intensive than the A-65 as you have to adjust the valve clearances every 25 hours. The Auster is definitely noisier as it has no silencer/muffler. Mine will soon though cos I was going deef!
To sum up after all that, most people think the Cub is more cute than the Auster and that's a factor in the price equation. The other factor is that spares for the Cub are easily available, including the engine, at a reasonable price. Auster airframe parts are available, also at a fairly reasonable price but engine spares, especially for the Cirrus, can be problematical. They can however be re-engined with the Lycoming 0-320 or 360 if required. Another factor is that they were the ubiquitous trainers of the 50's & 60's and were common as muck then. Finally, they suffered from the reputations of the later overweight Beagle models.
Personally I prefer the Auster as it is more robust and, although not as "chuckable" as the Cub due to higher control forces and not very effective ailerons, it's still loads of fun to whizz about in. My aircraft, if fitted with the correct seats, can be looped, rolled etc legally. It is stressed to +4.5/-2.5 g compared to the Cub's +3/-1.5 (I think). A further bonus is that all Austers have a perspex roof (some are fitted with dinky little blinds). The L4 has a clear panel roof but I find the J3's claustrophobic (I am 6' and 15 stone!) with their solid roof and small rear side windows. Although you can open the side of the Cub up in flight, you can slide the side windows of the Auster back as in the Mark 1 Minis and stick your elbow out for posing purposes
And finally (I can hear the sighs of relief), Auster is what the Romans called a light southerly wind. It was felt during WW2 that this fitted well with the likes of Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest etc.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: back at the grind stone
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mighty Auster v Dinky Cub
Come on guys it has to be the classic British Auster. (Although with a 0320 up front). Much more room, quality engineering and British. If you want STOL then the Mk6 is your mount.
IMHO cubs are under engineered, small and in most cases over priced. But as you say demand is demand. Although I personally think it might have something to do with much more cubs being on a pfa scheme, hence the long term cost saving. I only know of a few Austers on a permit. (a scheme now closed to both types).
As for those Lycoming fits. I always though the 0320 was more popular. I have only ever heard of one with a 0290 (pricy spares). Although I have seen ones with a 0235, 0360 and even a 0200.
Anyway thats my rant for the interests of British engineering.
Also: by the way, out of interest. Does anyone know who holds the type certificate / authority for the Auster/ Beagle now. ??
Come on guys it has to be the classic British Auster. (Although with a 0320 up front). Much more room, quality engineering and British. If you want STOL then the Mk6 is your mount.
IMHO cubs are under engineered, small and in most cases over priced. But as you say demand is demand. Although I personally think it might have something to do with much more cubs being on a pfa scheme, hence the long term cost saving. I only know of a few Austers on a permit. (a scheme now closed to both types).
As for those Lycoming fits. I always though the 0320 was more popular. I have only ever heard of one with a 0290 (pricy spares). Although I have seen ones with a 0235, 0360 and even a 0200.
Anyway thats my rant for the interests of British engineering.
Also: by the way, out of interest. Does anyone know who holds the type certificate / authority for the Auster/ Beagle now. ??
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To stray back onto the topic if I may.
You asked about info on Cub's and which is the best - easy, the one which will climb best, cruise best, strip fly best, be more comfortable is............... The Aeronca Champ
You asked about info on Cub's and which is the best - easy, the one which will climb best, cruise best, strip fly best, be more comfortable is............... The Aeronca Champ
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that De Haviland Aviation (or is it DH Engineering?) at Duxford are now involved with the Pups and Bulldogs, but am not sure if if they also deal with with the Austers. As for Cub vs Auster, although I have sampled the delights of L4 flying, I have yet to try an Auster, although I've been fond of them since I was little. I think that this is because the first Biggles story which I read as a child involved one of his post-war Air Police exploits, in which Austers featured regularly. I still get childishly excited when I land somewhere and see an Auster parked up. Low n Slow, we really must try to get together this year so that I can admire your machine.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Over the hedge... just!
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this fly in is an Auster/Cub one, then I suppose it should be open to Taylorcraft as well.
I did notice all of the comparisons between Austers and Cubs used the J3 or the like. There is also the SuperCub, even more expensive, but a bit quicker, and in the case of QDM3's 150HP SC a very STOL aircraft with reasonable cruise speed. All soloed from the front unlike the J3.
Any advance on Turweston ?
CC (90HP Supercub with no flaps)
I did notice all of the comparisons between Austers and Cubs used the J3 or the like. There is also the SuperCub, even more expensive, but a bit quicker, and in the case of QDM3's 150HP SC a very STOL aircraft with reasonable cruise speed. All soloed from the front unlike the J3.
Any advance on Turweston ?
CC (90HP Supercub with no flaps)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bristol and Forest of Dean
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C C
Yes, I’ve been thinking about this - How about trying to find a well located farm strip somewhere central. This way we can give a few rides 'round without spending a fortune on landing fees
Any ideas anyone?
If we can manage organize the first successfully how about Lundy for the next one??
Kingy
Yes, I’ve been thinking about this - How about trying to find a well located farm strip somewhere central. This way we can give a few rides 'round without spending a fortune on landing fees
Any ideas anyone?
If we can manage organize the first successfully how about Lundy for the next one??
Kingy