Little Cubs - Info Needed
 

I'm thinking of buying a 65hp Cub for fun and frolicks (and perhaps a lasting relationship). I've flown the Super Cub a fair bit and I'm aware that the 65hp machine is no load lifter but how STOL is it? What are your experiences?

What should I look for/look out for?

Anyone know of any nice Cubs around the UK and for sale?

I look forwards to your responses either here or at [email protected]

Thanks

May be of interest:

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/pub/...de/4999-1.html

http://store.yahoo.com/esscoac/noname102.html

http://www.danford.net/pipercub.htm

http://santapaulaairport.com/pipercub.htm

I have often heard that longeron corrosion can be a problem, and this is discussed, or at least mentioned, in this article: http://members.eaa.org/home/flight_r...piper_cub.html

M 14p

As a co owner of a 65HP L4 Cub let me answer some of your questions.

It's not a bad load lifter actually - gross is 1220lbs and most weigh 750lb ish empty so that's 470lbs useful load. Standard fuel is 12 us gallons (70lbs) which leaves 400lbs for crew and baggage.

Lets look at the STOL performance - they will land at least as short as a Super Cub with the right technique, but take off is a big variable. One up with a few knots headwind mine literally leaps off the ground in less than 100 yds - with 15 or 20kts we're talking a few plane lengths and she's off... At the other end of the scale, with two fat blokes on board and full fuel on a hot day
we’re talking 200-maybe 250 yds max, which is still pretty good.
Bear in mind the above relates to a strong running engine with a modern fine prop. With an old Sensenich cruise prop she was a much more marginal aeroplane taking ages when loaded to get off.

Unlike the Super Cub it's Soloed from the back and yes the instruments are still in the front - so you will soon get used to taking the odd peek past the passenger but flying largely be feel - this is a good thing...

I much prefer the handling of a J3/L4 to a PA18. The controls seem more direct and responsive, particularly the rudder which seems higher geared and more powerful. The trim is nicer too being higher geared also. The sticks are longer in the J3 and in the back at least falls nicer to the hand.

Carb heat is a long stretch forward down by your right foot - and you'll need plenty of it... A 65's ice up for a pastime.

Performance? Stall high 30's mph, cruise 75mph (ish) approach no higher than 60, 55 solo and 50 if you really want to get in short as they float a lot more than a PA 18 (no flaps, same wing and much less weight) climb 50-60mph 450 FPM at gross, more solo - climb angle is good because of the slow speeds. VNE 100 MPH.

What to look out for? These aircraft are at least 57 years old and most have been rebuilt a few times by now - its unusual to see a tatty one (except mine!). There is an AD on the Wing struts to check, but many have been fitted with new sealed struts, which means no AD so that's a good point. Corrosion at the rear of the fuselage where water collects can also be a problem. Most have wooden spars, but a few of the later ones have an ally spar, which could be a plus. The brakes are rubbish even when working well and some parts getting hard to find and expensive. An aircraft on a PFA Permit generally is more sought after than one on a C of A. Finally, the engine is a gem - no one seems to know the TBO, but I've got one in a BC12 with 2500hrs SMOH still going strong - they start and run beautifully. The best news is, if the worst happens to the engine running used ones only go for around £2.5K - Brilliant.

All in all a great, great aircraft.

You are very welcome to come and have go in mine anytime to see if you like it.

I may well know of one for sale - It’s a J3C and it’s beautiful - I'll check and get back to you.

Kingy

Thanks for replys so far. Very informative.

I've flown most of the variants although I was never looking that closely at the performance since it was always from large fields. I was really hoping to use the aircraft to pop in on friends with 300 metre-ish strips (all with good approaches/overshoots) so it looks like it's in the frame as a choice still.

First of all, where are you going to base your Cub? Close enough for me to get a ride? :D PA18 is my favourite aircraft that I've flown so far, but never flown any of the smaller Cubs, would love to have a go!

Anyway, the short-field performance... the PA18 doesn't have any performance graphs in the POH, so I'd suspect the other Cubs don't either. Kingy's post suggests that what you're planning on doing is quite achievable, but we all know that every aircraft is different, especially when they get to that kind of age. So I'd certainly want to come up with some kind of performance figures for the specific aircraft you buy, before going into any kind of short field. Never done anything like that myself, but read a bit about it a few times, and it sounds like getting the figures together would be good fun in itself! :)

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

Kingy says it all, really. Absolutely agree with his post. I used to fly an L4 and it was much nicer and more fun (but much slower) than the Super Cub, which I think a tad over rated.

I wrote a peice on the L4 in 'Pilot' many years back - it's listed in their 'flight tests' list in most issues.

A friend of mine is looking for an L4, which I may share myself. We are prepared to pay good money for a really good one on a permit. Anyone who knows of one, please mail me.

SSD

M14P,

I am afraid you won't have time for that. You will be far too busy beasting DJM and me in the '52.

http://www.yak52.aero/

So who's bringing their L4/J3 to Eggesford in the spring to swap rides in a PA18-150?
;)

QDM

M 14p

For what it's worth I generally consider my Cub safe into 300M strips with 2 on board. Judgement is required however in assessing factors like long grass, upslope, DA etc. - it's a 2 seater with only 65HP so ultimate grunt IS limited.
Don't think of it as a PA18 with only 65HP though - it's a lighter aircraft with a lower wing loading and it's eager to fly...

QDM

Sounds like a good idea! and you are welcome into Eastbach any time..

Kingy

THere are too many people wanting to buy cubs!

Can I just point out that there are plenty of nice taildraggers around that can easily fullfil the tasks you have in mind for the cub!

So,

Let have a look at these links and see if I can find a nice one for myself.

FD

:D They are just sooooo nice.

Can I just point out that there are plenty of nice taildraggers around that can easily fullfil the tasks you have in mind for the cub!

If you have fallen in love with the L4, there is absolutely NO alternative that 'does it' - or comes near.

Maybe they should start making them again? Then again, no. To do it properly would cost a fortune today.

SSD

Try Wag Aero
 

Shaggy says: "Maybe they should start making them again? Then again, no. To do it properly would cost a fortune today."

Fortunately, you can still get the Wag Aero Sport Trainer, which does not cost a fortune and is very close to the original J3:

http://www.wagaero.com/sportrain.html

http://www.fliteguide.co.za/Imperial...g_Aero_pg1.htm

Shaggy says: "Maybe they should start making them again? Then again, no. To do it properly would cost a fortune today. Fortunately, you can still get the Wag Aero Sport Trainer, which does not cost a fortune and is very close to the original J3: "

Nah, It's flown from the front seat like a Super Cub, not the rear, like an L4. It's that rear seat view out of the open side that is so much a part of the L4 experience.

OK, it looks nice, but there's a bigger problem than the seating - you have to build it yourself! I'm a flyer, not a builder (can just about manage an Airfix kit). So it's not for me.

SSD

Ah, yes - another believer!
Perhaps I have low expectations but I have not yet flown the J3 and been in the slightest bit bored with 65HP or 73MPH. If the HP is a problem it is perfectly possible to upgrade to a larger motor(up to 100 HP, but 85 apparently the best all-rounder) but you lose the charm and originality..
From 1946 on the J3s had metal spars, but if you want a fairly original L4 it will have wooden ones. ADs as Kingy says are not a problem - most relate to the 40s and 50s - but as he says check the struts (almost£2k for sealed units with larger forks -well worth it quite apart frm the lack of repeat checks) and the spar strut attach fitting inspection AD (hole cut in LE wrap to inspect forward facing fitting). Check for corrosion on the lower fuselage tubes (not only at the back!). Ensure the wing/fuselage/engine mount and tailplane are all square to each other! In flight, carefully check the trim operates without slipping. It's a very simple machine and easy to work on (except the trim system which can be trying) so that adds to the enjoyment! No question, therefore find a Permit aircraft:D
On the minus side cramped forward seat, inability to reach the instruments from back seat, 20lb baggage compartment and a crap cabin heater. Standard 12 USG tank limits the range especially when the wind is blowing so accept that you'll make plenty of fuel stops! Again, perfectly possible to find machines with wing tanks, or you can fit one yourself. I use Mogas at home and have had absolutely no trouble (£12 or £13 an hour!!) The Brakes are, well, J3 brakes and here I disagree with Kingy - I think that they are perfectly adequate (a lot of nose overs are on Cubs with disc conversions) and are fine for strip flying and absolutely essential if you want to operate in goodly x-winds or land with any downwind component so it's best to keep 'em serviced. Inner tubes and tyres are hellish expensive, too.
STOL is a given - absolutely no trouble with 300m at all up weight, nil wind and Summer temps. A lot less than that if conditions are right. One up and light you can really have some fun!! Ground run are v. short during TO and Landing but angle of climb is poor. Sorry. But, as I say, if it's windy you've got yourself a poor man's helicopter!
Anyway when it comes down to it, bimbling along at 70MPH, doors open at less than 1000' on a summer's day is heavenly.
Especially, when nonradio...:D

I can understand your desire for a Cub. I did my taildragger difference training in a J3 in Florida sunshine with no door, absolute heaven. On return to UK ditched the club share in a PA28 and looked for a share in a J3. Unfortunately the ones I looked at seemed to have higher than the previously stated empty weight and a lower MAUW. Being a big bloke (FB shirt size) it was either full fuel or a passenger not both. Dreams shattered I found a Supercub PA18-95 on a permit. Wonderful, loads of load carrying capability and cheap to run (C-90 running mogas) I fly from a 400m strip which we only seem to use less than half . Any of the cubs are an absolute delight to fly. The fact it takes twice as long to get anywhere is an advantage IMHO.
Sounds like we should have a PPRUNE Cub fly in
Good luck

CC

Thanks all for some really good responses.

I'm also considering offering the aircraft out for tailwheel checkouts and the like on an 'I'll bring the aircraft to you' basis in the London area (I'm an instructor, too) but this will take a little while to set up so I'll get the aircraft first.

I still haven't got any good leads on an aircraft yet and it'll need to live somewhere...

Anybody know a friendly farm strip with hangar in the Berks/Hants/Surrey area?

Thanks again all

Kingy says about peering round the pax. but a few people I know fly it solo from the rear and 2 up from the front to get round that problem, either way not really difficult.:) ;)

You know, that could be fun.

It does sound like fun, doesn't it! :D

Except that I'm not current on the Super Cub, having not flown one for around 9 months. That can be easilly fixed tho ;) The cost of renting the Super Cub, compared to the normal cost of flying the Europa, will be a bit harder to swallow though...

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

FFF, assuming

(1) that we and some other small Cub enthusiasts in the London area can't find a suitable J3/L4 to put a group around (judging by the postings above, there would be enough of us to do this if the right aircraft could be found)

and

(2) that I can be bothered to shell out the outrageous wonga demanded by WLAC to check out on the Supercub

....we could split the cost and share the flying to and from the notional Cub fly-in

I have almost succumbed to (2) recently, as my own group aircraft, and my friend's L4 in which I did my tailwheel conversion, are both up on blocks at the moment, so, on the rare occasions when the wind stops howling, I have nothing to fly in.

FFF - it might be a wee bit more expensive to hire the SC, but can an europa do this?

:D

*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!

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! :D 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
-------------

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

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

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

Somewhere grass obviously and not surrounded by huge amounts of controlled airspace and which is reasonably central.

Perhaps if everyone puts in their location we could figure out a reasonable place to go. I'm at Eggesford.

QDM

I'm at Bennington, doesn't have the luxury of an ICAO code.
Stuck between Luton and Stanstead airspace.

CC

Im way out West - 2 miles from the Welsh border at Eastbach, so anywhere west or south west of London would be good for me.

Kingy

I'm just north of Luton.

Would the invites be extended to a Vagabond ?

Location : Henstridge, Enstone, Finmere all would be good.

How about Turweston? - It's got grass..

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
:D :D :D

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

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

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 :D

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.

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. ??

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 :D :D

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.

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)

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