J-3 Cub pilot report

[rezaf_2000]

This morning I got about an hour of flight in a 1946 Piper J-3 cub at the red stewart airfield in Ohio, in what turned out quite a fun experience. All my flying hours so far are in modern Evektor SportStar LSAs, with an hour of Piper Archer thrown in between. The cub was a vastly different experience, and the only suitable word here is “raw”. It looks and feels like an old farm tractor. Sitting in the back seat, it was hard to get in, hard to get out, and the carb heat handle was almost out of reach. The rudder pedals are around the front passenger seats, and I’m pretty sure I kicked my flight instructor in the behind a couple of times trying to find the rudders! There are no instruments there for the back seat pilot, and even the front seat passenger doesn’t have much to work with: Engine RPM, Airspeed indicator, Altimeter and oil pressure/temp. No coordination ball, no attitude indicator, no fuel gauge (it’s a floating stick over the engine cowling), no nothing else. And seating in the back, I didn’t even have a clear view of these 4. Basically flying based on your feel. The machinery looked simple and sturdy enough that I didn’t feel unsafe, but definitely not designed for ergonomics. The continental A-85 engine was less refined than the Rotax 912 I’m used to fly behind. It took a few attempts of hand propping to start it and took a few minutes to warm up. The engine response to throttle didn’t feel linear as well. You also had to move the throttle rather slowly, otherwise the engine would sputter and show unhappiness. In comparison, the Rotax 912 has a much more linear response feeling to the throttle, at least to me, and it instantly responds to the throttle changes. On the ground and while taxing you don’t see what’s in front of you, so you have to move in an S shape like a snake to see if there’s anything in the front.

Once in the air, the experience was again raw. In the SportStar, one feels insulated from the outside world. The Piper Archer was even more insulated. Not at all in the cub: the windows shake, the frames rattle, there’s wind leaking into the cabin from everywhere, and you see the cables and ailerons moving in response to your controls. All you have to control is the stick and the rudder, and the throttle. The heater knob was on, but that didn’t help a single bit with the freezing temperature. Add to that the scarcity of instruments, and the fact that you can’t even see them unless you poke your head around the passenger’s shoulders and head, and you get the idea. It feels like a motorized bicycle to some extent. The visibility is completely unlike the SportStar. In the SportStar you see the ground in front of you and the skies all around, while the low wing stops you from seeing the ground from your sides. In the back seat of the cub, you don’t see much of the sky except right above (there’s a window there on top), and not much from the front except the passenger or the the instructor’s head and a tad bit of the engine cowling and the horizon line, but you get to see the ground below you clearly from both sides. You also get a clear view of the wings in action, including their relative position to the horizon to get a feeling of your flight attitude.

It took the 85 hp engine quite a bit longer to get us to 2000 feet AGL than the Evektor’s 912 ULS does. Once there, I did a number of standard maneuvers: S-Turns, circle, steep turns and power-on/off stalls. During the steep turns, the elevator control would start to fight, so I had to pull the stick pretty hard. Somehow the Evektor handles this with much more ease. The left-turn tendency was less obvious in the cub than the Evektor in my opinion, perhaps either due to a less powerful engine, or the different rudder design (prop wash). During the stall, it was quite easy to handle the plane and keep it aligned, maybe even easier than the Evektor. However, at some point during the power-on stall I almost had to pull the stick with two hands to make it stall. Again, part of the raw experience in this plane. The stall was interesting, since the fabrics on the wing start to flutter, and you literally observe the stall happening. Since the cub is a certified plane, the instructor demonstrated a stall-spin, which was a hoot, kind of scary and lots of fun! In all these maneuvers, I was performing by looking at visual clues like the angle between the wing lines and the horizon, or whether I’m feeling pushed to one side or another (for coordinated flight), and listening to the sound of the engine instead of seeing the RPM. By the way, the airplane has no electrical systems, so no radios or intercoms, and therefore no headsets. The instructor and I had to communicate by shouting over the loud engine. We also had to keep an eye for other planes around (or later in the pattern) for the lack of radios.

The cub doesn’t have flaps, so in order to land it you should slip it if too high. Not a big deal, the landing was uneventful. After the touchdown, I felt the instructor was busy playing with the rudder pedals, but no squirrely performance from the tail-wheel airplane, no doubt due to the nice rudder work of the instructor. All-in-all, a fun experience, definitely different from the planes I’ve flown with so far. I think I personally would prefer a side-by-side seating, and a bit more insulation from the elements. In any case, it was an interesting and fun experience, but I probably won’t want to own a cub or a champ.

As a side note: once done with the cub, I sat in a Taylorcraft BC-12 parked right next to us. It wasn’t as cramped as everyone claims (I’m 5’ 8” at 180), although the flight instructor sitting next to me was a bit on the heavier side. It also had way more instruments than the cub (I like) and felt comfortable, with a rather large baggage area. I might come back to the Taylorcraft at some point in future. Suppsodely Luscombe are pretty similar, but they have a higher accident rate and higher insurance costs to prove it.

P.S. The instructor told me the engine was 85, but the FAA registry shows it as the continental A-65.... Hmmm...

[drseti]

Glad you got to fly the Cub, Reza. Come back to KLHV next summer for our fly-in, and see hundreds of them.
I think all the later J3s were built with the 65 HP Continental (earlier ones had even lower power). Most have been upgraded during their many overhauls, to 75, 85, or even 90. This does not change their FAA registration.

[Nomore767]

Classic description of flying a basic tailwheel airplane!

It would be nicer on a summer evening than in the cold.

[3Dreaming]

I had a Cub for a while that I did instruction in, and now have access to another. You are right that climb seems slow compared to modern SLSA aircraft, at least the ones I have flown. Do go back and fly the Taylorcraft, in my opinion it is a much nicer flying old airplane than the Cub.

[FastEddieB]

Shortly after getting my Private, I wanted to expand my horizons and got my tailwheel endorsement in a J3 at Homestead General in S FL.

Not long after that, bought a Citabria 7ECA - 115 hp w/o flaps.



The Cub scores 11 on the funky/cool scale. But for me, the more modern Citabrias were much more well rounded - quieter, more comfortable, better equipped, better performing in both cruise and climb - while still exuding tube-and-fabric tailwheel cool. Later owned a 7GCBC - 150 hp w/flaps.



But it's great to hear of others expanding their repertoire and types flown. Keep it up!

[Wm.Ince]

Thanks for the post rezaf_2000.
It was a fun read . . . that really awakened some imagination.

[3Dreaming]

Eddie, I learned to fly in a blue and white 7ECA just like in your picture, it was a 1973 N90977. I also have a time in a 150hp Citabria and Decathlon. I probably have around 50 hours in a 7AC Champ as well.

[Wm.Ince]

But it's great to hear of others expanding their repertoire and types flown. Keep it up!

Sweet!
That looks like a lot of fun.
One of these days . . .

[Vance Breese]

We have a Cub fly in in Lompoc, California.
The number of Cubs that show up is amazing, the sky is yellow with them.
I love to see the ardor the pilots have for their Cubs and hear of their flying adventures.
It is a lovely way to spend a couple of days even though I don't fly a Cub.

[Merlinspop]

rezaf_2000,

Very nice description of my idea of Heaven.

[SportPilot]

.......

[Merlinspop]

That Cub looks like its about ready for a refresh.

[snaproll]

Reza,
Great story about your first Cub experience - brings back many good memories of growing up on Flabob airport. Had the opportunity to fly a J-2 (40HP) and the 50 and 65 HP versions of the J-3. Your experience rings true of the basic simple airplane. The Flabob old timers always had a set routine for pre-flight on the old Cubs, grab the wing tip bow and shake the wing up and down looking for play (elongated holes in the wing root spar area or strut mount area of the wing spars). Flying the Cub is a great experience and builds appreciation of later designs.

[rezaf_2000]

Thanks everyone for sharing your experiences as well.

And yes, I do look forward to trying a Taylorcraft. Does anyone know of a flight instructor in midwest with one?

[drseti]

yes, I do look forward to trying a Taylorcraft. Does anyone know of a flight instructor in midwest with one?

Why, that would be our friend Tom Baker, alias 3dDreaming!