What's the fascination with a Cub?

Cubs suck to fly.

i-Zs4GhMv-X2.jpg

i-bLFFnfs-X2.jpg
 
Cubs are nice airplanes. And since I didn't start this thread, I don't have a strong opinion either way. And those are beautiful pics. And if you like Cubs you should keep liking cubs.

But I can slow down too. And I can fly low too. and when I push the throttle back in, I'm going 160kts TAS in a few minutes. :)
 
No question, the Cub is one of the all time great planes, and great fun to fly. But it's far from the best of the breed. C.G Taylor designed it (remember it was the Taylor Cub first). C.G. was a great designer but a bad businessman, partnered with William Piper when he needed money, then Piper forced him out of the company in a very sleazy move while Taylor was ill. Taylor then started a new company, designed the Taylorcraft as a Cub killer (which it was, a better airplane in almost every way), and again went broke when the war boom ended.

In the mid 1980s I had a group of friends with a Cub, an Aeronca, an Interstate, a C-120, a Porterfield, and I had a T-Craft. We always used to make fun of the Cub driver, he always had to leave first or he'd arrive last.

I don't know about getting laid in a Cub, sounds strenuous if not painful, but C.G. once said that one of the reasons for the T-Craft's side by seating was that it was much more pleasant that way if you were taking a pretty girl for a ride.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
Flying a cub is like really good sex, only better.


Reminds me of my old email signature:
Air racing might not be better than your wedding night, but it is better than the second night.
Click to expand...
When you get to the age where you get choked up with nostalgia over a Cub, any sex is good sex.
 
Tailwheel sign off in a Cub, and loved every hour of flying it. It was actually a WagAero Cubby with a Cont. O-200 (does that count?), and would jump off the ground even in wet grass. So far as handling, it definetly made a better student pilot out of me. Low and slow, the only way to fly them.
 
As a person who has never flown one, I've wondered what the big deal is about cubs myself. From my perspective, they look like good ol' trainers, and that's about it. I always imagined one would yearn for more performance as soon as they could graduate up to something else. However, judging by the nearly universal beloved-ness of the planes, I have to assume there's something more to it. Unfortunately, I think I'm to fat to ever get a ride in one, so I'll have to take everyone's word for it.
 
I solo'ed in a Cub, trained behind a big 'ol dairy farmer who was my instructor. Never saw the gauges until solo :) I enjoyed the Cub although I lost a good pair of Ray-Bans cuz I wanted to look at the tail in flight. But the Luscombe was a far better plane IMHO.
 
Pizza, sex, and rag-wing taildraggers...even when it's bad, it's still pretty good.
 
Here's an example of what fuels my fascination with Cubs. Highly modified, sure, but you don't see any modified Champs or Luscombs doing what Cubs do. Stock vs stock the Cub is a superior short field performer but the Cub platform is capable of much more.

 
labbadabba said:
Particularly the J3?

It's slow, barely climbs, isn't really known for good flying characteristics, crappy forward visibility...
Click to expand...

Why do people still buy Jeep Wranglers? Not fast, poor handling, terrible braking distances, bad ride, noisy, etc...........
 
Okay, so basically the attachment to the J-3 is almost purely out of nostalgia.

I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm putting someone down over their love for the old cub, that is not my intent. Cubs are so far removed from my flying interests that I can't conjure any reason why I would fly one.
 
labbadabba said:
Cubs are so far removed from my flying interests that I can't conjure any reason why I would fly one.
Click to expand...
Not at all removed from my flying interest but I'd sooner take a champ or my favorite of the 2 seat taildraggers is the Cessna 120/140's, but I've ALWAYS preferred Cessna products over Piper. Fly better IMO. (Never flown a Tcraft, though I'd love to)
 
Different tools for different missions. I have no interest in low wings, tricycle gear, or small tires but I respect that some guys favor them.


IMG_0088.JPG
 
Last edited:
Right hand on the STICK, left hand on the throttle, centerline seating, really need a Super Cub (or Husky, or Scout) to experience the short takeoffs. Wind along at 100' following the river. It's a Cub thing. If you have to have it explained to you, you'll never get it kind of a thing.
 
labbadabba said:
Okay, so basically the attachment to the J-3 is almost purely out of nostalgia.
Click to expand...
Nostalgia and fun. They are a lot of fun to fly. They are the same kind of fun as driving a 1948 Willys Jeep around is. Raw, maybe a little uncomfortable, and unburdened by any modern technology. I actually can say I'm a better pilot because I started out learning without the burden of instruments to get in my way. Just airspeed, altimeter, a sailboat inclinometer, and a tachometer, most of which were hard to see around my instructor in the front seat anyhow. I learned how to fly first and how to operate an airplane second. And it was all a ton of fun. And I haven't even landed off-airport yet!

My recommendation is to get some time in a Cub. J-3 or Super Cub, either way. You may not like it but it's cheap fun and you'll know afterward whether you are a Cub guy or not.
 
Stewartb said:
Here's an example of what fuels my fascination with Cubs. Highly modified, sure, but you don't see any modified Champs or Luscombs doing what Cubs do. Stock vs stock the Cub is a superior short field performer but the Cub platform is capable of much more.

Click to expand...
You may see plenty of modified super cubs but you aren't going to see many highly modded J-3 cubs that I know of. Same reason you don't see a lot of highly modded Luscombs or Champs, they just never came with big engines like the Super Cub did.
 
iamtheari said:
My recommendation is to get some time in a Cub. J-3 or Super Cub, either way. You may not like it but it's cheap fun and you'll know afterward whether you are a Cub guy or not.
Click to expand...

Maybe my whole post is just a ruse to get a local Cub driver to give me a ride... :rolleyes:
 
I get why the J-3 is loved, but I'd probably never own one. I've never flown one, but would love the chance to hop in and experience it all the same. If I were going that route (low/slow) I'd probably be going Scout/Citabria unless I really wanted to do the backcountry (sub-800ft runways) and tundra tires. I'd think a SuperCub would be an okay compromise.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Why do people still buy Jeep Wranglers? Not fast, poor handling, terrible braking distances, bad ride, noisy, etc...........
Click to expand...

Huh... funny- we have three Jeeps, and we want to buy a Cub. I have two 1/4 scale RC Cubs, one of which is a SC with a twin cylinder 4-stroke engine. <- my avatar
 
Bill Jennings said:
Why do people still buy Jeep Wranglers? Not fast, poor handling, terrible braking distances, bad ride, noisy, etc...........
Click to expand...

Wrangler offers a significant utility, not found elsewhere, at least not without a significant compromise. If you pop the top off, you can load large items that otherwise require a pickup truck. I have actually done that. I understand that it's easy to go to Home Depot and rent a real truck, which is exactly the compromise I mentioned. In addition, Wrangler allows for a great comfort off-road, as I found out to my great surprise. Not in the sense of reduced jolts - you still get thrown around when you run over stones, and even Land Cruiser is no help in that. But it allows for a significantly lesser driver fatigue. When I had a RAV4, I was able to get to 95% of places where I wanted to go. But to get there required a constant application of skill, never putting a wheel wrong. It's only fun for a couple of hours. With Wrangler, I can just follow the ruts and only worry about deep mud. It's a significant difference. Interestingly enough, I've been to places where a Power Wagon was too wide and long (around a wash-out, e.g.), and Wrangler squeezed through easily.

Of course, in addition to all the issues you mentioned, Wrangler is compromised in utility, too. Its range is too short. Its tow capacity is almost zero: barely enough for a glider trailer. Clearly it's not suitable for many applications. But at times it is a rational choice.

In case of a Cub, its utility focus has shifted as Skyhawk took over the training role, and people started putting more powerful engines on them. You can often see Cubs used in support of fishing and hunting, even with great weights of supplies, weapons, and the harvested animal. Nonetheless in one celebrated case, when a guy needed to run a supply for a lodge, he chose a Zenith.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Understood, and I mentioned Wrangler (CJ) mainly because I believe the Cub and Jeep appeal to the same types of folks.
Click to expand...
Maybe statistically. I'm quite fond of Wrangler, although less so of CJ, and I don't care for Cub. I'd rather have a Zenith CH-801 or a 182 with Peterson kit. Okay, maybe RANS S-7.
 
I've flown and taught in Cubs. They are fun little planes but way overpriced because of the nostalgia aspect. Even if they were not overpriced I would buy something else. Lots of ac in that class that are better than a cub.
 
If you have to ask, you wouldn't get it. J-3 Cubs have significantly better flying qualities than Champs, BTW. I've owned both.

And I don't get why people say Cubs are over priced. Over priced means priced higher than the market will bear. Cubs are priced the way they are because they fetch those prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top