A C140 is not a Cub...

[Lotro]

I'm still on the hunt for that elusive first airplane. I started with a survey viewtopic.php?f=54&t=83923 and after consulting with a few pilot friends was confident that a C140 would meet my mission and budget requirements.

I flew a beautiful C140 recently, and afterwards I was frustrated, because, well, it's not a cub.

The plane was great, flew well, had heat, electric start, got off the ground quickly, didn't mind the windy fall weather, but it just didn't feel the same.

I don't know if I should try to fly more C140s and see if it will grow on me, or if I need to search for a different aircraft.

So I'm back here. If you've flown a C140 and a Cub, I'm hoping you can help me translate my "feeling". All I know is that flying the 140 didn't feel as fun/nice or like a cub. I don't understand what I didn't like about it or how to move forward from here.

I'd appreciate it greatly if those of you with more experience would weigh in. Don't want to type? I'll take a phone call, or call you, or buy you beers if you're in the GTA.

Thanks in advance,

Lotro

[oldtimer]

Piper built a couple of airplanes called a Cub, from the J3 to the PA 11, the PA12 and the PA 18 Super Cub whereas Cessna only built 3 versions of the Cessna 120/140, the el-cheapo 120, the fabric wing 140 and the all metal 140A. To compare the 140 to a Cub is like comparing a 4 cylinder sporty compact car to a Jeep. Two toally different vehicals. You have to ask yourself what you want to do with the airplane. The Cub is a much better airplane on floats or skiis but the J3 and PA 11 do not have electrics unless modified, are slow, drafty and noisey. The PA 12 has seats for 3 and the PA 18 is expensive because it is a good "off road" type of airplane therefore rather expensive. The Cessna 140 is more of a cruiser type of airplane that has full electrics, heat and uncomfortable but side by side seating. So what do you want to do? Go fishing, land in the back woods, fly low and slow with the side door open or do you want to pick up chicks (or take your significant other) and go for a fun fly.

[iflyforpie]

IMHO, a lot of the whole 'Cub' thing is an emotional response reflected by a higher purchase price. It's the same reason why people spend more on Leica cameras or Omega watches or Snap On tools. Each might be somewhat superior in their own ways, but certainly not enough to fully justify the increased costs.

Also, the design philosophy is slightly different between the Cub (all versions) and other planes. The Cub was designed to be a slow airplane and perform well off of short strips, whereas the other aircraft were designed to be as fast as possible on the available power. This is why the Cub has the fat USA 35B airfoil while the 140 shares the same NACA 2412 airfoil as the 210 and nearly all other Cessna singles in between.

However, you can stick a set of VGs on just about any aircraft now and greatly increase your STOL performance non-invasively and for far less than the added price for a Cub.

As for the feeling, well, the 140 has much more in common with the ubiquitous 150 than a rag wing taildragger. It is spam-can (including the wings on later models), side by side rather than tandem, uses wheels instead of sticks, and doesn't have the ability to fly with the door open. The 140 doesn't respond as well either, as Cessna was already working on an airplane for everyone and taking airborne leg work out of the equation.

If you want that feeling in a cheaper aircraft, go for an Aeronca 7AC. I suggested the Citabria 7ECA before, but an Aeronca 7AC would be cheaper and more comparable in performance to a J3... plus roomier.

If you have to have a J3 or PA11 or whatever, just go for it. You are paying to have fun... right?

[bagbat]

Check out this nice story on flying a Cub (with the addition of vortex generators):

http://www.canaero.ca/subpages/Article% ... page1.html

[Rowdy]

It sounds like you've already made up your mind and are trying to justify the additional cost of a cub to yourself.

The 140 is a fine airplane for the cost. The cub in my opinion (I've flown the PA11 and PA18's) are way overpriced.

iflyforpies option is a good one too!

[DonutHole]

A cub isn't really even a cub unless it has about three pounds of paperwork worth of STCs associated with it.

[Cat Driver]

A cub isn't really even a cub unless it has about three pounds of paperwork worth of STCs associated with it.

Please explain why?

[Colonel Sanders]

I've never really been fond of either the C120 or C140.

Not really sure why. They're both ok airplanes, and like
screwing, flying is always better than not flying, so it's
not like I'd ever refuse to fly either one, they're just not,
well, I dunno. Fun. Spirited in the sack.

I do rather like the C170B. TCM O-300 engine is very
smooth, but is dying for an upgrade from 145hp, but
that's never economical.

Which brings us to the C-180. Very nice, mild-mannered
airplane. But could use a bit more power.

Which brings us to the C-185, which is probably my
favorite Cessna. If I had to fly a Cessna, it would be
a 185. Probably with a turbo-normalizer and a kevlar
oxygen tank. I'd fly it IFR everywhere in the high
teens. Put a G530 and a kick-@ss autopilot in it and
you'd have one fine travelling machine that you could
land pretty much anywhere.

The problem is that Cessna stopped making them so
long ago, they're all beat up and high time junk now.

[Shiny Side Up]

I sort of like the little Cessna taildraggers, personally I think they would make everyone a good starter airplane. They make good little trainers I think, in my opinion they make you work a little bit more, the Cubs its pretty hard to screw up enough before you get into the safety of the air. You hardly notice that it has a yoke, I alway hold it on the top, so its more like a stick with a spade grip. I think I have asoft spot for them since they have the styling of the old International truck my Dad used to drive us around in. Its just different from the Cub. As above, I think the whole cub club is abit overrated, for a lot of people I know who have them what they use it for it would make no difference if they had a 140 instead, their fetish for Lockhaven yellow not withstanding.

I do rather like the C170B. TCM O-300 engine is very
smooth, but is dying for an upgrade from 145hp, but
that's never economical.

As far as engine upgrades go, pricing out the Franklin 180hp upgrade is relatively reasonable. Emphasis on relatively.

[DonutHole]

A cub isn't really even a cub unless it has about three pounds of paperwork worth of STCs associated with it.

Please explain why?

Well, it's just an opinion but here is where it is formed.

Aside from j3s the 18 seems to be one of those planes that just begs to be modified.

you get it, the first thing you do is smack on an exhaust for that extra oomph, bigger tires, and now since you're landing like a helicopter you box the tail so the frame doesn't twist, then you need that storage in the back and of course vg's and then winter comes so you need skis, and oh yeah floats for the summer, don't forget the upper cross bar and maybe a nice radio and that nitrate butrate probably needs to be replaced, and better brakes, and oh yeah, a prop to get you off the water, and another one to get you off the ground.. the list goes on.

like I said just an opinion, but most supercub guys that I know don't have exactly stock 18s they usually have another plane just to gross their journey log.

edit: dont know many guys around here who use floats in the winter.

[Cat Driver]

The best Cub that Piper built was the PA11.

It really does not need anything extra to improve it except maybe V.G. 's.

[DonutHole]

vg's seem to make pretty much anything better. big fan here

[Lotro]

Thanks everyone.

You're right, I have a bit of a love affair with the cub. I was just really surprised that the C140 was such a DIFFERENT feeling than the cub to me. That said, it meets the mission requirements. I think I may endeavor to get some more time in one before writing it off.

I'd LOVE to get my hands on a PA-11 that someone didn't mess up too much. They're hard to find though and usually when you come across one, they're all beat up or they cost just as much as a super cub. Plane prices are coming down, who knows what a J3 with c-85 will be going for in 2013.

[lownslow]

Try a Champ on for size, it's no Cub but it's still a darn nice little airplane. Also, if 'the mission' you refer to is to just diddle around a burn gas while marveling at the wonder of flight go for something as simple and close to original as you can. I am of the opinion that when an airplane gets 'improved' (either by STC or factory development over the years) there is always a compromise made that while you may get more range or a gentler stall or increased payload or a back window, the general feel of the airplane is made worse. Speaking strictly of flying enjoyment, I find an early 172 is nicer than a late model, a 40hp Cub is more pleasant than a 65hp one which is more pleasant than a 100hp one, a Gipsy Moth better than a Tiger Moth, and so on.

LnS.

[Colonel Sanders]

Both the Champ and Chief (side-by-side) are
quite nice airplanes, IMHO. If you like side-by-side
the BC12D t-cart is another option.

I don't know why, but all 3 of the above have
a different feel from the 120/140 which I prefer.

[rapid602]

Lotro ... Not to change you mind but ... I have been in both ... But maybe you should put the Aeronca Champ on that list. My buddy had one and I LOVED THAT AIRPLANE. I have flown MU's and a Cessna Citation ... But the best flying I remember were the summer evenings after dinner flying with the door open watching the sun set. My fondest memories of flying .... There is also a homebuilt out there called a KITFOX.... looks like it flies like a Cub on Steroids.... but look at the Aeronca Champ ... Similar to a Cub.

I am sure you will buy the one that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

[Cat Driver]

I have flown almost every Cub type ever built and the PA11 was hands down the best, so I am building a PA11 clone, here is where I am now.

I started with a Super Cub fuselage.

Replaced about 40% of the tubing that had rust in it.

I then bought a Wag Aero Cub wing kit, and have one wing assembled.

I bought an aileron kit and a Super Cub strut kit from a company in Florida.

I built new tail feathers from Cub plans.

I have the landing gear with new Cleveland brakes and wheels from a Husky that was converted to an amphib.

I have like new Super Cub cowlings.

I have a Lyc. 0-235 ....108 H.P. that was rebuilt 56 hours ago.

I have the Alpha Systems AOA indicator with the probe now installed in the left wing.

I have the complete Stewart Systems covering kit.

I have a new ICOM radio.

I have a new Garmin digital transponder.

Also everything listed above has been inspected and approved by the DAR or what ever in fu.k they call the outfit in London that inspects homebuilt projects and there are serial numbers for all the parts that require them.

I am conflicted about finishing the project as I never seem to get the time to finish the project and would consider selling the project if I could get a fair offer for the parts I have bought and built.

I have a record of the cost of the project to this point and it is $52,000.

[cgzro]

IMHO, a lot of the whole 'Cub' thing is an emotional response reflected by a higher purchase price.

I got to borrow one for a couple of weeks a few years ago and I thought it was a lovely little plane. Something about the way the controls feel etc. is quite satisfying. Not sure why but the Citabria and Champ, while fun, did not "quite" feel the same.
Not very scientific I know but I think there is a bit more to it than money... at least in my case it was free

[Cat Driver]

From my own experience flying these light tube and fabric tail wheel airplanes the Cub and the Citabria are different.

Having flown the J3 on wheels and floats in the Ag business and the Super Cub and a Citabria, the Cubs were better as far as control harmony and effectiveness was concerned.

[black hole]

I have owned and flown most of the rag tail draggers. C140 (Cleavland Brakes a must) could use another 20 HP. Camps 65, 85, 90 (not bad; but not a cub). J2 with 65 HP fun. T craft sporty but archaic ( round wheel ?). Fleet 80 (Now there's A plane that with another 20 or so horses!!!!!).
I think that the plane that I had the most fun with was an original PA 12 (with a few up grades (Electrical). Eventually converted to 150 HP and that was heavenly.

BH

[Cat Driver]

Yes, yes the PA12 is a wonderful machine but try and find one that is affordable price wise.

What I remember most about the PA12 was its side slipping ability.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think I've figured out why I don't get warm fuzzies
from the C120/140.

The reason why, is that like the C150/152, it's designed
to make you feel bad. And poor.

Remember, Cessna is like GM. It wants to get you in the
door, and if all you can afford is a Chevette, ok, but you're
going to feel bad about driving it. Hopefully bad enough
that you're motivated to go out and earn boodles more
money and come back to the Chev dealership and trade
your POS chevette in, on a corvette.

Funny how just a few different letters can make all the
difference in a product lineup?

Same thing at Cessna. You make a mistake and buy their
bare-bones bottom end product, it's going to be cramped,
spartan and poor-feeling inside. Hopefully, Cessna thought,
to motivate you to trade up from the 120/140 to at least
the 170, or hopefully a 180/185.

Same thing with the nosedragger 150/152. It's designed to
make you feel bad about your purchase choice. Earn some
more moolah, the suits at Cessna say, and you can trade up
to a 172. Then a 182. Then a 206. Then a 310. Then a 414,
and then a 425. Then a Citation, just like John and Martha King,
whom are living the Cessna Marketing Dream (CMD (c))

Cessna was quite successful. The 150/152 was good at only
one thing - descending. Cessnas may not climb very well or
go very fast, but by gosh, they obey the law of gravity:

[Shiny Side Up]

Remember, Cessna is like GM. It wants to get you in the
door, and if all you can afford is a Chevette, ok, but you're
going to feel bad about driving it. Hopefully bad enough
that you're motivated to go out and earn boodles more
money and come back to the Chev dealership and trade
your POS chevette in, on a corvette.

You're trying hard to sound all prole and stuff, but I detect you approve of this.

I just find there's a different way of percieving these little birds. You're right to a larger degree when talking about the Cessna nose draggers from the 150 up, but keep in mind Cessna didn't have anything to up sell to when the 120/140 series were made - well they sort of did, it was that beautiful monster they call the 190/195, but that was long before Cessna started up a lot of their marketing schemes. When these little airplanes came out, they were something new and designed with a certain "style" in mind, much like cars of the same era. They're living bits of the golden age of aviation. Personally I think they look best clad in polished aluminum. Especially compared with its 150 replacement, the 120/140 is like a '64 mustang compared to one of those hideous things that bore the mustang name in the '80s. To head off your derision, the 120/140 is hardly a mustang of airplanes, but the comparisson in evolution of models is apt. That's the handle I suppose. They're from an era when they made things because they thought they would be a good idea, before the days where airplane design bowed to market pressure demands.

I mean look at this little guy:


Sitting there at home on the grass. Reflecting the greenery with its beautiful straight lines before some marketing fool came up with the terms "omni-vision" or "land-o-matic". How can one not love the Curtiss-esque curve of the rudder? When this thing was made there were no "low wing only" pilot groups and hardly a scrap of plastic to be seen.

[Beefitarian]

Add a wing and you might have him.

I love it but probably would have to reduce the fuel if I had too much lunch. We all know how much I like too much lunch.

[2550]

Anyone here know anybody who bought a cub and got rid of it cause they didnt like to fly it?