Interesting......another case of cub hatred. I like the fact that they had to rewrite the rules to eliminate the best contender. That's funny. Kind of like saying only white guys can play basketball lol.
I think you're a bit off on the super cub. The clipped cubs were built without flaps for better cruising speed and range only. The super cubs retained the long wing, added an electrical system, flaps and a bigger engine. They kept getting more power throughout their production.
I'm guessing that you've never experienced a ride in a cub yourself. I doubt that you would have such contempt for them. The Super Cub is the most revered plane in Alaska for good reason. There isn't another plane that was available at any time that could do what the cubs have done. The light weight (700-1000 lbs) and high payload (gross takeoff 1500-1800 lbs), slow stall speed due to large wing and flaps, excellent visibility, durability and ease of repair and maintenance made them as usefull as any old pickup on the farm. They are still the only way some people get into town and back. With all of the mods available for STOL, they get better and better and because they are so loved, they get more expensive. A fully modded 250hp super cub can run you 180,000 used. I can get much larger planes for less. If you really have deep pockets, you can a full carbon fiber fuselage and turbine engine. A carbon cub with a 200hp engine holds the record here at the May Day fly in at 17 feet takeoff.
Here's a picture of my grandfather using a cub in the 70's to carry materials into the lake they built their cabin on. The lake is so small that even still not many planes can get in there. Not bad for a big old dogs dingleberry don't you think? And yes, they really do carry lumber that way.
Aaaaannd you have a bad case of cub love. Many aircraft have a special purpose that they fit. Look at the Ag plane they used in Australia, wowsers. No, I haven't ridden in a cub but I have trained in Sailplanes and flown in 152's, comanche's and a couple other lightplanes. Look, if it's the only plane at the field or the only one for a particular job I'm in. It is an aircraft. But I just don't have the profuse, gushing, need to change my underwear that some folks have and that the average newbie that came into the hobby shop fully realizing that they couldn't fly a P-51 right off the bat, they needed to fly a cub first, has. And like the P-51, everybody has had a cub too.
Suprisingly enough, my favorite model plane is a Stick an we've ALL had that too. But that's all function over form. Next one I build I'm gonna make a Rapier style, just for a little class.
No, I save my "Oh I gotta have one of those" lustfull feelings for Jugs n Bearcats.
But back to planes, I have got every style you mentioned: the Cub, a Super Cub, the P-51, and the Stick. All have their place and all help advance the flying skills. The SC was my first plane and it was the only plane I took to the field today with the only goal of practicing touch & go's.
I've had two cubs, both of the midwestern kits I believe (had belcranked barndoor ailerons). I bought both of them used and outfitted, one had a JR 783 included. By the time I figured the cost of the radio, servos, engines and transmitters I had spent 20 bucks on the box (cub) to take them home in. I flew the first one all summer. It was a 40 size with a stupid 65 in it. To get it to fly realistically I put the prop on backwards. 1/4 throttle on approaches, 1/2 to get out of the chalks. Heavy, so heavy. The guy didn't trust the kit designer so substitued an all aluminum spar. At the end of the season I pulled the gear out of it and gave it to the club to raffle. They made 85 bucks off of it and it flew most of the next season.
Next one I had I showed up at training night and did my duty. Then as all the trainers were putting up their ships I took it out, test flew it and then strapped glow sticks to the wing. I flew the rest of the summer on Tuesday nights with it, only after dark. I bought a 4 stroke 4 it that winter, broke that in and took it out in the sunlight for half a day. After I was comfortable with it I made the fatal error of flying with the engine close to idle. 4 stroke will idle so slow that the prop can become more of a speed break then thrust and I slowed the plane down to much at about 20 feet. A wingtip dropped *which happened with those sloppy belcrank aileron setups) and I corrected with aileron. What I should have used was rudder as the wing was stalling. Increased aileron just sent it over the edge and the cub dropped over and spun half way around into the ground. The airframe eggshelled but the wing was alright and I gave that to a guy who had one just like it albiet missing a wing panel thanks to his garage door. I took the gear out and sold the 4 stroke which was undamaged. Almost got full price out of it which was a shame because it was broken in real nice and adjusted well. But nobody wants to pay for experience.
On Modelnet, old compuserve days, I became infamous for my "There are two great days in a Cub owners life" rant. Almost got me kicked off modelnet. Until then Cubs were just another airplane to me. Afterwards I've always played that they were the lowest form of pond scum ONLY because you mention that your no big fan and people will ask for your address so they can come over and adjust your attitude with a pipe wrench or a piece of rope. It's purty funny for those in the know and amusing to me with those that don't.
And the Two best days? The day he buys the cub and the day he finally sells that worthless POS, or something to that effect. I was more eloquent at the time and listed all the things wrong with a cubs desing. It has just enough power to get you to the crash sight, comes in any color as long as its baby poop yellow, Has just enough vertical stab for a wing half it's span, about a page and a half I believe. Should have copied it but I don't think I have anything digital from that period in computer history at this time.
So along those lines whenever someone asks a question or references cubs I tell them Taylorcraft are a much more classy option. Why not build one of those instead?
Mr. Clean.....Well played my friend. :applause: I figured we'd get a real good thread going lol. I couldn't agree with you more on several fronts, especially the baby poop yellow . I too hate it, hence the recovering of my cub found elsewhere on the forum. I really hate the wing on it. It's a huge 1 piece with too small ailerons, sloppy bellcrank singe servo controls, and did I mention a huge 1 piece wing that's near impossible to transport without damage and it's not even scale. I really only offered a counterpoint to make a point and give an opposing argument for those who may not have experienced cubs and haven't made up their mind yet. I figure I can talk all the crap I want about cubs because when people get angry I bring mine out and they shut right up lol.
As far as cub models, I personally hate the J3 cub. Yet, that's about the only model offered because everybody want to be nostalgic. They actually fly like crap compared to the Super Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Citabrias etc. I wanted to add flaps and try to improve mine while I was in it but I would have had to basically build a whole new wing. It wasn't worth it. When you get an actual supercub, like the Aeroworks models or the E-flite model, then you start to have a plane worth flying. If you made the leading edge slats, better flaps, better ailerons, stol tips etc. then you'd really have an amazing model. Basically add the Alaskan mods.
Seriously though, if you want an amazing ride, go float flying with someone who has a supercub. My uncle had a float plane that an experimental, basically a double wide cub with 4 seats and light light light light light. We went some amazing places in that plane. Landing on a river while going around the river bends was a thrill. It's no P-51 ride, but a P-51 ride is no float plane ride either.
A bit more progress
The tail feathers (with no rudder).
With the fuselage top decking added the can be glued on.
With no bending strength in the joint it will rely entirely on the wings struts.
After much thought I decided on a simple spring steel undercarriage rather than the scale bungee type. The undercarriage is held in place by a plastic 'plate' glued to the side of the fuselage.
As with the full size the rear U/C mounting also carries the wing struts (only one in place at the moment)
It runs on chunky 1.75"dia x0.9" wide wheels.
Each only weighs 0.1oz as it is made of Depron!
Slowly getting there!
Sitting on its undercarriage.
The tail wheel.
The ESC, radio and battery.
The last structural component will be the windscreen leaving a roof hatch for access to the battery.
For initial flights the battery will be positioned by loose foam padding. Once tested the battery will located in a made to measure Depron box.