PIPER CUB---DANGEROUS?

Has anyone had a dangerous incident in a Cub that could be attributed to it's poor and treacherous design? I have discovered some statements to that effect and it would be interesting to hear from anyone who is too frightened to fly one.

 

You mean after 80 years they still haven't got the bugs worked out?

 

Yeah, there's a reason people pay pretty good money (as compared to similar aircraft of the era) for them, and are still making brand-new clones of them. I don't know where those statements came from, but I suspect whoever is making them isn't really qualified to be making them.

I flew a Super Cub clone professionally for a couple years and never had anything that could be described as "a dangerous incident due to it's poor and treacherous design."

 

I don't know if it gets better than this.

http://www.vid4fun.com/Other/103/runway-for-this-guys-is-a-luxury.html

Looks like he could just about land and take off again in my back yard.

 

Never flown a Cub, so I looked up a flight review on its handling. Here's what one guy says:

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/ClassicCompCub.1.html

Seems like the only real complaint is that it has a steeper than usual taxi attitude and some wind sensitivity during taxi? Otherwise it just sounds quirky, which is probably typical of most older planes.

 

I know of one that crashed at an airshow in Oklahoma City. The guy was playing a "Snoopy and the Red Baron" routine, and he was dressed up as the Baron with a huge Snoopy Dog stuffed animal in the front. He pulled up very, very steeply at the end of the runway, and then made a RIGHT turn into a strong downwind. (yes, I know - another issue - the dreaded downwind turn... and whether it is real or not) but anyway, stalled completely and spun it right down in the ground.

The presence of the stuffed dog is supposed to have saved his life, but he was hurt pretty bad.

The remains of the aircraft were rebuilt by my next-door neighbor and his partner in the plane, an ex AF guy who finished up his career in F-105s. I learned to stitch fabric on wings and sand airplane until your fingers were bloody on that one. Both proclaimed it an outstandingly good and honest aircraft when finished. We flew many times in formation practice with my Citabria.

Like all of them, the Cub had a limit beyond which you were really, truly, busted for idiocy.

Never heard any urban legends of hidden vices.

 

sitting down to eat a meal is very dangerous...it is a hazardous experience, yet we continue to do it with regularity... we manage to survive... similarily flying a Cub should be managed within its' limits to insure survival

 

I could not help but think about Steve Fosset when reading this thread - he was apparantly quite experienced, but had a fatal accident in a Citabria.

But no - I cannot recall anybody ever saying the Cub had any inherently dangerous issues.

 

The rear seat "sling" sometimes collapses under heavier-than-1930s pilots. But I'm not sure that qualifies as "poor and treacherous design".


"The Piper Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you"

 

More exactly, a Bellanca Super Decathalon. Similar to a Citabria.

I also thought of Fossett (2 t's) reading this thread... That probably was not the plane's fault, though...

 

The original heel brakes in the J-3 sucked. But operating a J-3 on grass never required brakes anyway.

 

Yup - I had heel brakes in my 7ECA Citabria - it just about ruined me for flying toe brakes: I always had to do a double check that I did not have the toe brakes applied before touchdown.

 

I'm a non-aviator know-nothing, but a view of that first video posted sure makes it look like the ideal plane for someone who doesn't need the utmost speed, distance, or passenger/cargo capability. Sure looks like as long as you don't fly like a jackass the thing should do a great job of getting you into the air, keeping you up there, and getting you back down in a reasonable fashion. Is this a wrong impression based on an edited video clip?

 

More than 50 years of history shows your words to be correct.

 

David, the Cub and Super Cub have been great airplanes and have done wonderful things with good pilots.

 

Hi Rob, I don't think that Cubs are inherently dangerous but the pilots are. I have seen several fatalities in them, one with a naval Commander who did an air show routine in one and with a borrowed J-3 he did a roll and the stick came out of the socket. I have flown a lot of them and almost all the variations of them and I have had a helluva lot of fun in them. BUT if they are flown like something other than a Cub, they will get you. They are a basic little kite and not very fast but they are a wonderful tool in which to learn how to fly because they will quickly let you know that you aren't coordinating the controls properly. As far as not being high enough, a guy landed one on the crest of Mt Rainier a few years back . He radioed that he couldn't get his engine running again so a rescue party was dispatched to rescue him. All night he sat in the airplane and flew it in the winds that visit the summit. In the morning just as the rescues got to the crest, he had already cranked up the engine and flew off the mountain before they got to him. They stood there and watched him leave after they had climbed 14,400 feet all night to get there.

 

Awesome video.

Check out the annual STOL competition on Youtube, in Valdez.
Yes, they can land and take off in your DRIVEWAY.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTuDeKxjPck[/ame]
Check out the bi-plane Cub

My favorite STOL in the bush, [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XYFcw1c-Oo[/ame]

I would own one of these in a heart beat.

 

According to the book Stall/Spin Awareness by Rich Stowell: A study on 31 airplane designs were ranked by their stall/spin accident rates. The Piper Cub ranked in the top 5 worst airplanes.

 

But that does not necessarily make them bad airplanes. By the same sort of analysis, the Corvette is either the top or second most dangerous car in the world.

 

Rob, I am reminded again why I will never be a candidate for the Cirrus.

But back on the J-3, they spin well and recover well. You do have to have altitude enough to recover. You do have to know how to maintain coordination (not slipping or skidding) - it will not coordinate itself. Perhaps this is what allows people to get into spins unexpectedly when doing slow turns/stalls.

I will repeat again - I have had a private license since 1969, and have been around this type of airplane for many years.

I have never heard the slightest notion that there was anything inherently dangerous about the Cub.

 

I wonder if the "dangerous reputation" comes from a combination of so many new pilots and so much training being done in Cubs.

 

That same book I referenced talks about the Columbias as well. The Columbia 300, 400, and Cirrus SR20 are not defined as spin resistant as defined in the FAA certification standards although all these airplanes have incorporate technology that makes them resistant to spin entries from abused stalls. The Columbia 400 though will spin easily compared tp the 300 and SR20 because of the rudder can overpower the ability of the wing cuffs to prevent roll-offs. Again these are large angle of attacks and pilot trying aggravate the stalls. Normal flying these MOLE wings should work well.

 

Well, in the near-fatal "Snoopy" accident I mentioned, it was widely believed among the aero people in Oklahoma City that the guy simply thought he could get away with ANYTHING because the Cub is such a docile airplane.

Nobody thought it was anything other than pure & simple pilot error, including the pilot who crashed.