I've been wanting to ask for thoughts on the J4 for the last couple weeks. All the J4 series with the exception of the "E" model are LSA. Some, including the "E" had a full pressure cowl. Gordon Goheen had his up for sale earlier this month. Seems to be gone now. In his description he noted that "it flies incredibly slow". He did not however specify if that was at top speed, cruise speed or loitering speed. Perhaps he meant "generally", as in "under any circumstances". Maybe I'll call him and ask. I believe his had a C-85.

Have any here experienced the J4? Would anyone here care to comment on it's utility compared to (say) the Taylorcraft?

Thanks
Emory

The J-4 is essentially a side by side J-3, and should have very very similar numbers, speeds, capabilities, etc. It will have a little less speed than the T-craft, perhaps a smidge more comfort, and probably a couple of miles an hour slower stall. All this is due to the USA-35B wing on the Pipers compared to the 23012 wing on the T-craft.

In today's environment and with the wisdom of maturity, none of the differences add up to much. They're all capable of getting in and out of short strips, they're all kinda uncomfortable, they're all fun and classic machines that you fall in love with, they're all "character" airplanes.

A friend of mine, who helped me build the 701, is in the process of restoring a J4. He is just getting ready to recover the wings. Apparently there are only 23 still registered. He should be flying it in the next couple of months.

It should have a cruise of about 90 - 95 MPH with a range of 360 miles. Weighs about 1,300 lbs.

Taylorcraft sold scads more BC* than Piper did J4. I think it was probably related to cruise speed. The block to block time difference on my most common cross country (grandbaby visit) would be about 26 minutes given 75mph for the J4 and 90mph for the Tcart. Not terribly significant.

Skystrider; I hope you mean gross weight with your number there.

Yes, gross weight. Sorry I didn't specify that.

Good topic, I've been interested in J-4s lately too. Thinking about picking up a project one. I heard they were just a touch slower than the J-3 as they're a bit wider. Not like it matters when you're going that slow anyhow.

The bigger question is one of interior room. There are some that are far more comfy than others. The T-craft is small, I understand the Chief is bigger. The Culver Cadet is the smallest of the 2 seat SBS aircraft, something like 34 inches across the shoulders. I have no idea where the J-4 fits into this spectrum, but it might make the biggest difference out of all the factors.

Just found this from a PIREP from Budd...

UNDOUBTEDLY THE LARGEST SURPRISE THE J-4 COUPE HOLDS is the cabin. It's easy to get into and you and your passengers don't have to assume an embryonic position to fit into the space available. Almost without exception, all of the two-place side-by-side airplanes of the era required a short course in yoga to enter and exit. In fact, in exiting a few of them it was easier to fall out backwards and hope you didn't break anything important when you hit. Not so with the J-4. The door/strut/step/position is such that boarding is a no sweat proposition.

The cabin width and height on the J-4 breaks with its two-place contemporaries. The wing appears to be mounted appreciably higher than something like a Taylorcraft or a Chief, which eliminates the claustrophobic phone booth feel associated with both and greatly increases the visibility to the point that you are merely "blind" to the sides and not "stone blind." This difference should not be underestimated. It makes the airplane very enjoyable.

http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepJ-4.2.html

EZFlap wrote:The bigger question is one of interior room. There are some that are far more comfy than others. The T-craft is small, I understand the Chief is bigger. The Culver Cadet is the smallest of the 2 seat SBS aircraft, something like 34 inches across the shoulders. I have no idea where the J-4 fits into this spectrum, but it might make the biggest difference out of all the factors.

I have flown right seat in one and have sat in others, and I have flown and flown in T-Crafts and Chiefs. The J4 has by far the most comfortable cabin of the three for this 6'3" 195 lb guy, and that includes ingress/egress.

But yes it is slow

There was a fairly nice one for sale in Talkeetna this summer that I had been admiring for the previous three years. Probably gone by now though.

I have flown a 1939 J4 extensively, has a A75 on it and was
rebuilt by John Hatz of Hatz bi-plane fame.
75 HP and wood prop makes it ok at sea level,
Wouldn't want to try hi altitude work.
Side by side stick and I think it's fairly roomy inside.
Nose and fuselage tank, lots of gas, 24 gals?
Aileron cables inside wing and different leading edges on the ailerons?
Ailerons seem lighter than J-3.
Landing gear is oleo like a champ, not a bad landing in there.
Clyde Smith says not to use Cleveland wheels and brakes, gear isn't
strong enough mounting wise for rotational forces imposed.
Fun airplane, I think this one is currently For Sale.
Dave

I may be a little off topic here but I seem to recall one of the older Pipers that was hard to get parts for. Not sure why that would be the case as most of these old planes use the same parts. Cowling or something just seems to be one of the parts that may be harder to get with any of these planes that were not produced in great numbers. Parts availability may be something you want to look at also when looking at any of the older TW planes. Granted with the abiltity now the 'manufacture' your own parts at times it may not be an issues. Just figured I would give you something more to think about in your quest for a plane.
Keith

Did somebody say, "Slow"? My buddy's J4 with the 85 hp Continental, on floats, cruises right along at 75mph. If you want to call that cruising. I told him we might be passed by cars on the highway. Traveling downwind.

Fortunately, we weren't following any highways. As long as you're not in a hurry, it's pretty impressive. Off the water, solo, it honestly was up about as quick as the Superchubs I watched. Dual, with gas (I presume) and some gear (two or three pounds, at least ), it used some water.

The cabin was about the best of any two-place factory job, viz good. Side-by-side sticks are way too cool, IMHO. And as copilot, it's sure nice to see something besides the back of the other guy's head!

He had a T-Crate before this. The J-4 is off the water a lot faster. But a some of that probably has to do with floats, prop, etc.... All in all, it's pretty impressive for something that sounds like an old case tractor.

I've got some video. Maybe I'll work up the ambition to figure out how to get it on the interwebs.

d.grimm wrote:I have flown a 1939 J4 extensively,<snip>
Dave

Hey Dave! Good to find you over here. I still think yours is the best Vagabond out there. Thanks for leading me to this bunch. I've now got the shirt, and as John Kerry, the haughty, somewhat French looking, former junior senator from Massachusetts used to say; "I've still got the hat to this day!"

I'm still going to take you up on that Vagabond flight one of these days.

Emory.......(Formerly known as Dan)

WWhunter wrote:I may be a little off topic here but I seem to recall one of the older Pipers that was hard to get parts for. Not sure why that would be the case as most of these old planes use the same parts. Cowling or something just seems to be one of the parts that may be harder to get with any of these planes that were not produced in great numbers. Parts availability may be something you want to look at also when looking at any of the older TW planes. Granted with the abiltity now the 'manufacture' your own parts at times it may not be an issues. Just figured I would give you something more to think about in your quest for a plane.
Keith

I recall reading that the only part for the J4 that was impossible was an upper cowl which required a level of sheet metal craftmanship that is no longer in modern American genes, or something

Anyway, it didn't make too much sense to me. One can have almost anything custom built anymore, if needed.

Edit: ah, this is what I read. Found it again: http://airbum.com/pireps/PirepJ-4.html

How does the baggage space (I use the term advisedly) compare to it's contemporaries?

porterjet wrote:How does the baggage space (I use the term advisedly) compare to it's contemporaries?

Inside or outside? You have to specify with all these AK folks around.

I own a 1939 J-4A and before thisone i owned a 1941.

The '41 had a C-65 and no electrical system.

The '39 has a C-85 with electrical system two main reasons 1 for the starter and second early for the mode C. Which as it turns out I saw them flying near airspace where they are required at. it is nice to know that the jet traffic in our area does see me on there fish finder.

The shoulder room in them is not bad. with the two big guys in it you will be touching shoulders but not pushing against each other depending upon the size of course.
Luggage compartment is larger than you might think. is the width of the aircraft and at least 2 feet in depth towards the rear of the airplane.


Very fun flying airplane.

I am putting a video on youtube right now of takeoffs and landings from the interior point of view.

I will post a link when its done uploading Processing now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_TLo6k93L0

PLEASE forgive the word "STOL" in the title of the video as it is not ANYTHING like any of the true STOL planes that are here on BCP!

I've got about 20 hours this past year in the prototype J-4 (built in '38). It has the oddball up-exhaust A-50 on it that redlines at 1900 rpm. Slow is being generous. Best ground speeds I've seen were probably in the 70 mph range.

A joy to fly, true basic stick and rudder, "fly the wing" flying. And with the Champ style gear, very easy to land. The early one has a rigid tailwheel assembly that's suspension pivots at the front and is sprung with bungees; makes quite a racket when you put it down. No electrics. Nice wide bench seat, so comfort wise is better than say a C150. Slide open windows are cool. Visibility is fairly good once the tail is up. Taxiing around you get a good view of the cowling and the nifty rotary float fuel gauge.

Brakes? What do you need those for...thing lands in a couple hundred feet without them. The old-school bladder brakes are just enough resistance for a run-up.

Have had it as high as 7000 feet and was still climbing (no mixture control) and have taken off with DA in the 6k range. Save for a couple of flights down at sea level, always treated as a single seater due to DA concerns.

Like others have said, control cables are internal to the wing (unlike a J-3). As well, not a trimmable tail; it has a trim tab on the back left elevator.



Oh yeah, and the owner says it's for sale.

Compare to a PA15/17 Vagabond which gives up little if anything on STOL, yet will cruise 100 mph on the C65. It will walk away from a C85 powered Champ, and performs STOL just as well.

They have the same cabin width as a Clipper/Pacer. Along with several "modern" improvements like trim...

There are a couple of these in the group I fly with.

If anyone needs J4 Parts I have a complete aircraft less engine and prop. Well almost complete it has a small dent in the fuselage right behind the seat where a 40' truss with 4 foot of snow fell on it!!_(*#*_#_#&$#!_+)#@!)(+*
GT