Quantcast

Why was the Cub a ...

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
new leaf my a**, that won't last LOL

Cub nuts get downright emotional after a perfect sunset landing. we never see the PIC turn and look back misty eyed at his 150. naw.
It's the perfect airplane for the cover art of a magazine or an article (could even be a Field & Stream...) that's supposed to make you yearn for the "old" days when things were much better than they are now. Thing is, I drove past a grass strip out here in the wilds of Oklahoma where a few people have their houses along the runway, and lo and behold there was this perfect (very iconic looking) yellow Cub sitting out in someones yard and two guys standing next to it with one leaning against the side with a foot on top of a tire, just like a painting - yearn, yearn...
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,925
Location
Mojave, Ca
Nope, never even sat it one. Just always admired them because they are beautiful.

I was told they were originally underpowered but have no experience with them.
A buddy had a 145HP version with an Aeromatic prop. It was a fairly nice feeling airplane once up and away but was an absolute dog on takeoff and climb, and was really slow in cruise. One of the few airplanes I've ever seen having a legitimately hard time getting out of my strip. I can't even imagine one with the original 85 HP.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,031
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
The Cessna 150 has a soul just like any other airplane. Not the same soul as a Cub, which is not the same soul as an F-4, which is not the same soul as a DC-3. The Cessna is just not an "old soul" as they say.

Any airplane willing to take the abuse, ham-fistedness, and stupidity that I put upon it as a student pilot, and then not kill me the first chance it got... trust me there is a very kind soul in there, you can bet your arse.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,435
Location
CT, USA
To answer the original first question, the Cub is high wing because wing struts work a lot better in tension than compression. For the second question, I don't think there will ever be another aircraft with such iconic status, because it's an era that has passed, no aircraft will ever be built in that kind of numbers again.

The Cub had other things going for it. It was the first widely produced cheap airplane in an era of biplanes that were much more expensive to fly. It changed flying from an expensive pastime for steely eyed helmeted and goggled aviators to something that the average guy in street clothes could do. It had a catchy name, and all of the various models of Cubs were... well, Cubs. Compare that to Cessnas which people know by their numbers (150, 172, etc.) even if they have a name, and regardless of model they all look more or less the same.

But in the eyes of the non flying public, "Cessna" has replaced "Cub" as a generic term for "light plane". When I had the forced landing in my Starduster recently, at least one news outlet reported it as the crash of a "bi-wing Cessna".

Dana

P.S. Read Wolfgang Langeweische's Lightplane Flying for a good sense of how the Cub changed aviation.
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,403
Location
Thunder Bay
I've never seen that; what is it (a low wing Cub, obviously, but...)?
Far as I know, that's the prototype Lipnur Belalang (no idea why it carries #3). The dozen or so production models they made had pressure cowls but I like the look of open cylinders on an airplane like that.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,792
Location
Memphis, TN
Most Swifts are not powered with original engines anymore. They have STCs for Lycoming and Continental 360s with constant speed props. In fact the Swift club is a house for STCs. Problem is that is what you spend money on. They are pretty and the gear goes up buy they are vintage.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,587
Location
Canada
Piper built thousands of low-wing Cubs and called them Pawnees. Most of the early Pawnee crop-dusters got 90% of their parts from Super Cub stocks.

Cubs sold well because Taylor E2 Cub was the first of a new generation of lght monoplanes. E2 as big enough to carry 2 adults and its Continental A40 was the first generation of 4,6 and 8 cylinder horizontally-opposed engines that have dominated the light plane market since WW2. The E2's biggest disadvantage was its "leisurely" rate of climb. Aeronca, Cessna, Interstate, Rearwin, etc. soon started building airplanes that competed directly with Cubs.

Immediately after WW2, L planes were surplused by the thousands. Even the obscure 3-seater Aeronca training glider sold well and most were converted to power planes. Immediately post-WW2, aircraft manufacturers hoped to profit by selling thousands of light airplanes to returning veterans. Aeronca, Beechcraft, Cessna, Culver, Ercoupe, Globe, Interstate, Johnson, Globe, Lockheed, North American, Rearwin, Republic, Waco, etc. competed for a market far smaller than predicted. Several went bankrupt before the end of the 1940s.
Another factor - that reduced the market for small planes - was shell-shock (PTSD). Many veterans were traumatized by the war. Women were tired of working in factories, so they relinquished their wartime jobs so that veterans could enjoy full-time employment. Many believed that the best cure for PTSD was a steady job, a wife, children, a dog, fishing buddies, etc. This created the Baby Boom (1946 to 1964) and diverted disposable income to the much wider selection of consumer goods: houses, cars, boats, electronics, fishing tackle, etc.
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
Piper built thousands of low-wing Cubs and called them Pawnees. Most of the early Pawnees got 90% of their parts from Super Cub stocks.
I hate to waste things, and the Pawnee is not as useful as an ag plane as it used to be, and the usual two seat conversion is ugly, but this would make a good military trainer for air forces with a budget (Matthew posted a different video of this on Secret Projects):

[video=youtube;YEl_mhVXZYQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEl_mhVXZYQ[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pwood66889

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
1,717
Location
Sopchoppy, Florida, USA
.

Immediately after WW2, L planes were surplused by the thousands. Even the obscure 3-seater Aeronca training glider sold well and most were converted to power planes. Immediately post-WW2, aircraft manufacturers hoped to profit by selling thousands of light airplanes to returning veterans. Aeronca, Beechcraft, Cessna, Culver, Ercoupe, Globe, Interstate, Johnson, Globe, Lockheed, North American, Rearwin, Republic, Waco, etc. competed for a market far smaller than predicted. Several went bankrupt before the end of the 1940s.
Another factor - that reduced the market for small planes - was shell-shock (PTSD). Many veterans were traumatized by the war. Women were tired of working in factories, so they relinquished their wartime jobs so that veterans could enjoy full-time employment. Many believed that the best cure for PTSD was a steady job, a wife, children, a dog, fishing buddies, etc. This created the Baby Boom (1946 to 1964) and diverted disposable income to the much wider selection of consumer goods: houses, cars, boats, electronics, fishing tackle, etc.
An excellent dissertation of the way it really went down!

Percy in SE Bama
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,954
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
The Cub is thought to have heart and soul.
I started getting flight training in a 150 HP Super Cub. Never flew a Cub where I didn't like how it flew.
You guys are of the same opinion as everyone that I know, so you probably are right. It may not surprise you that my opinion is different.

I’ve flown six or eight J-3’s, a couple of L-4’s, five or six PA-18’s, two PA-12’s and a factory built Carbon Cub. I appreciate their performance, and a sunset flight on a warm summer day with the door open is something that everyone should experience. And I agree that there is a lot of nostalgia in a yellow cub. But their handling is horrible.


BJC
 

Rockiedog2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,378
You guys are of the same opinion as everyone that I know, so you probably are right. It may not surprise you that my opinion is different.

I’ve flown six or eight J-3’s, a couple of L-4’s, five or six PA-18’s, two PA-12’s and a factory built Carbon Cub. I appreciate their performance, and a sunset flight on a warm summer day with the door open is something that everyone should experience. And I agree that there is a lot of nostalgia in a yellow cub. But their handling is horrible.


BJC
hold on
I didn't say *I* think it has heart and soul...I said *it* is thought to heart and soul. It's one of those things we're supposed to get emotional over. Or something like that.
I instructed in the things and always dreaded it. We had T Crafts, Champs, Luscombes, Cessna 120/140, Stinson 10A...I forget. I'll take any one of those over a Cub. Tha Champ was my favorite, so much more room, bout 10 mph faster, flew a little looser but Ok, landing was like taking a snooze in your recliner. It just settled on real nice and the gear was nice and foriving. I hadn't flown one it probably 20 years and took one around the patch...at touchdown I couldn't help it...broke out in a huge grin and laughed out loud. Only airplane ever made me do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,516
Location
USA.
hold on
I didn't say *I* think it has heart and soul...I said *it* is thought to heart and soul. It's one of those things we're supposed to get emotional over. Or something like that.
I instructed in the things and always dreaded it. We had T Crafts, Champs, Luscombes, Cessna 120/140, Stinson 10A...I forget. I'll take any one of those over a Cub. Tha Champ was my favorite, so much more room, bout 10 mph faster, flew a little looser but Ok, landing was like taking a snooze in your recliner. It just settled on real nice and the gear was nice and foriving. I hadn't flown one it probably 20 years and took one around the patch...at touchdown I couldn't help it...broke out in a huge grin and laughed out loud. Only airplane ever made me do that.
I have flown about 85 different aircraft and lots of Cubs, Champs,Chief, Luscombes, Cessna 140, never a Stinson 10A. I always liked the way the Cubs handled, small cockpit and hard to get in and out, never liked flying from the rear seat in the J-3. Never liked how the Champs or Chiefs handled, you have to like the cockpit room and the landing gear on the Champs. Cessna 140, just a C-150 with a tail wheel ,ho-hum. My grandson got a share in a Luscombe for his 16 th birthday. When flying a Luscombe for some reason I always thinking Ford Model A. T-Crafts are OK, but like the Luscombe not easy to get in the cockpit. One thing about the T-Craft and Luscombe, if it will fit in the cockpit and you can shut the doors, it will do a good job hauling it.
I like the Super Cub , on my birthday, just give me a Carbon Cub or any of the big engine Cubs and I'll try to come up with the money for fuel.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,954
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
hold on
I didn't say *I* think it has heart and soul...I said *it* is thought to heart and soul. It's one of those things we're supposed to get emotional over. Or something like that.
I instructed in the things and always dreaded it. We had T Crafts, Champs, Luscombes, Cessna 120/140, Stinson 10A...I forget. I'll take any one of those over a Cub. Tha Champ was my favorite, so much more room, bout 10 mph faster, flew a little looser but Ok, landing was like taking a snooze in your recliner. It just settled on real nice and the gear was nice and foriving. I hadn't flown one it probably 20 years and took one around the patch...at touchdown I couldn't help it...broke out in a huge grin and laughed out loud. Only airplane ever made me do that.
OK, I mis-interpreted what you wrote. It seems that, among the old timers, one either is a Cub guy or a Champ guy. Like you, I am a champ guy, although I’m heavier today than I was the last time that I flew one.

Speaking of weight, the last J-3 that I flew was one of the lighter ones (1946 and earlier?) with a C-90. It had good performance for a Cub, but still lacked decent handling.


BJC
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,954
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I like the Super Cub , on my birthday, just give me a Carbon Cub or any of the big engine Cubs and I'll try to come up with the money for fuel.
A Carbon Cub will get you into and out of any reasonable field in WV, but, personally, I would prefer that soneone give me a Bearhawk Patrol, so I could circle the CC in cruise.

How does the Patrol handle compared to the cub clones?


BJC
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,516
Location
USA.
A Carbon Cub will get you into and out of any reasonable field in WV, but, personally, I would prefer that soneone give me a Bearhawk Patrol, so I could circle the CC in cruise.

How does the Patrol handle compared to the cub clones?


BJC
I haven't flown a Patrol but I have flown the prototype 4 seat Bearhawk and after flying it , I told Bob Barrows that I would not change a thing. It flys great. He says the Patrol flying a little better than the Bearhawk , what ever that means. I know he likes the view down both sides of the cowl of the Patrol better than the Bearhawk.
I agree, I would like a Patrol better than the CC because of the faster cruise. But I haven't flown either one.

Very few reasonable fields in WV. Ours is one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

Rockiedog2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
2,378
One thing I found about Cubs was that the aileron cable tension if a little tight changed the feel entirely. Heavy stiff ailerons outa synch with the rudder. Didn't take much. We had a J5 and I tweaked the cables and got it flying the best of any Cub I ever flew. Neighbor had a 100 horse PA11 and it flew awful. cable tension. Our J5 was a much better airplane than a J3 or PA11 the cockpit room made all the difference. Soloed my 15 year old kid in it in 6 hours; that kid could wheel land that J5 better than I could. That was a good Cub. A75 with eyebrow baffles no pressure cowl. Proper and correct Cub.

Well, I guess aileron cable tension would do the same thing to any of those little planes...that was just the only one I had any experience on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

Latest posts

Top