A couple of friends and I are considering going in on a Piper J-3 Cub as a light, fun and inexpensive flyer. The airplane of interest has a C-90 engine and Edo 1320 floats.

One partner is interested in building time inexpensively, another in completing primary training in the aircraft and I am interested in accumulating float and ski experience.

We would base it out of a 3500 ft msl field and a 3000 ft msl lake in the summer.

Can anyone share their experience with a J-3 as a trainer and on floats operating from these elevations? It would be flying occasionally with two 175-200 lb men during dual instruction flights. This doesn't concern me too much on wheels, but floats? If it were a 65 hp Cub, I wouldn't even give it a thought, but with a C-90.

Is this a sea level airplane only, or could it perform reasonably in the lower high country?

Alex Clark in Homer had a J-3 with a C90 on floats. He gave instruction in it.

http://www.acsalaska.net/~aclark/

Not sure how often it operated out of higher places, but it would be worth shooting him an email. He's also over on supercub.org.

I'll chime in on my high DA and wheels experience in the J-3. I don't have any experience on floats.

I did my primary flight training in my family's 85-hp J-3 out of Gunnison, Colorado (7,700' MSL, summertime DA's into the 10,000-11,000 foot range). At the time of my primary training I probably tipped the scales at 145 lbs, and my instructor was similarly svelte. We flew in the mornings and getting enough performance to go do the basic PPL maneuvers was never a problem. Crossing the continental divide with two people aboard would require a combination of patience and an eye for sources of lift, but under the right conditions it was certainly doable.

I currently keep the plane on the Front Range of Colorado (~5,000' MSL). Solo flying year-round is an absolute blast. On cool mornings I will get 500-700 FPM continuous climb. The plane has so much wing and enough power to pull it off the runway in the 3-point attitude within a couple hundred feet. I now weigh about 190 lbs (all muscle and have flown with similarly sized friends. Performance falls off fast with two men and full fuel on board, and on a hot summer afternoon (say getting into the 90's) diminished climb performance starts to make the fence on the departure end look a little tall. I also have 29" Airstreaks on the plane, which adds some weight and drag. I could probably wring a bit more performance out of the plane by switching to small tires and swapping from a cruise/climb to a climb-pitched prop.

If you have more specific questions I'm happy to answer them, but in general I think that a 90-hp J-3 can definitely handle the wheel and ski flying that you have in mind.

Happiest J-3 w/90 Hp I ever heard had just come back from a morning instructional flight about 11:30 am in McCall, Id.

His proud moment came on the return when he got to report:
"Cub xyz over Stibnite - ten thousand- descending for McCall via Browns Pond."

He may still be stuck with that smile.

Having Art Lazarini with him didn't hurt either.

Chris C

One of the biggest concerns we had when we wanted to add a fun stick and rudder to our family was the official payload.
I know that with our "average" sized 210-225 ish pilots in question, a lot of the classics were overgross before we even put fuel in.
In a learning environment, it's possible a new pilot could be asked to prove weights.
We found the PA-12 gave us just enough.
YMMV
Chaz

Chaz is correct on the useful load issue. Before you drop the bucks, look at the weight and balance, particularly on floats, and see if you can do the job. Many J-3s weigh in the 700 pound range on wheels, but GW is 1220 for most, less for some. So, do some math and see if it will LEGALLY do what you want it to.

I'm based at 4500 feet msl. My PA-11 with a C-90 does just fine, as long as you keep it within it's gross weight. I've had it to 11,500 coming back from Salmon, just because I could. No complaints about performance.

My first airplane was a J-3C with a 90, and operated on Goodyear Airwheels in winter and EDO 1320 floats in summer on Kodiak Island. I had a blast with that plane and learned a lot with it. I can't really tell you what altitude performance was, because I don't think I ever got it over 7,000 msl, and most takeoffs were below 500 msl.

With those altitudes, if you just use your head and get out of bed a bit early for heavier launches, you should be fine. They are great performing little airplanes.

Give me a shout if you want to discuss more.

MTV

Make sure you try it on for size too; maybe you already have. I just don't fit in the front seat of a J3. Some instructors will only instruct from the back seat.

The rear seat gives the instructor more "cues" as to what is happening.
Butt shifts- Shoulder leans- longer perspective of fuselage relative to flight path
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Also instructor can pull slightly on cables to drift you off course and see if you are awake. The bastard can even turn off the ignition when you least expect it.

Then there are all the non-verbal hand signals - well... sometimes the hand slaps were precluded slightly by some unintelligible shouting and screaming.
If you really panicked and or froze he could then knock the snot outa ya,
he couldn't do that from the front seat of a shoulder skinny J-3.
Used to be a comical, but true, chart of the signals in most older flight schools.

Piper puts out a chart with the instructor in the front seat.
Not much humor in it though as in the old original I remember.

One of the YAKS I got to work on was a trainer for MIG pilots and the back seat was full of switches and valves to scmuck up the plane while the student could not see what was about to happen.

Nuff for starts

Chris C

wannabe - I think this is the chart you were referencing.

Yeah- that is the "polite" one. Notice though that #14 is with inst. in REAR seat.
The one I remember had no helmets or headsets, and your view was of both instructor and student as viewed from behind the instructor in the rear seat.
The cartoon work was a lot more "emphatic" with the effects of the open handed or closed fist stimulus - response visuals.

Looked all over for it but no joy.

Wannabe findin' it.
May make a few calls.

Chris C

PS: I left out the part where the Instructor could grab ya by the hair- pull yer head back, and give ya an ass chewin' face to face.
Things were tough back in the good ole days when...

Talk to Shebles down in Laughlin NV about a J-3 with O-200 or C-90 on 1320's on hot days with two on board.

A GREAT teacher of the step. And great teacher of using two light finger tips ONLY to caress the stick, or risk being called ham fisted.

You will be challenged to find that step with two on board on a warm high DA day with that set up, but it will make you a much better float pilot in the process.

I bought my T-Cart with C-85 (then upgraded to a stroker O-200) on Edo 1320s specifically for that reason.

Gump

Lots of talk about the 85 or 90 engine here, but I have an opportunity to get a 65 horse J-3 for a really good deal. My airport is at sea level, but surrounded by mountains (Squamish, BC) plus lots of wind. I love the idea of the Cub and the lessons flying an underpowered plane would teach me...but am I dreaming? Is the 65 just going to be a total pain in the butt and unusable? What is the availability and cost of upgrading to the C85 or 90?

formulaphoto wrote:Lots of talk about the 85 or 90 engine here, but I have an opportunity to get a 65 horse J-3 for a really good deal. My airport is at sea level, but surrounded by mountains (Squamish, BC) plus lots of wind. I love the idea of the Cub and the lessons flying an underpowered plane would teach me...but am I dreaming? Is the 65 just going to be a total pain in the butt and unusable? What is the availability and cost of upgrading to the C85 or 90?

Mountains and wind combined will very often create a situation where NO small airplane can climb or make headway, regardless of MSL altitude. It is never a bad decision to have more power available when you need it, especially if you can throttle back during the times when lower fuel burn or sightseeing low and slow are more important. Not having that extra power available when you need it is frustrating at best, and can immediately turn dangerous, no matter how well it "teaches you to fly the airplane".

Look at the local topography in the specific areas where all those 40 and 65 horsepower Cubs, T-crafts, Champs, etc. were originally designed and built. Bradford and Lock Haven Pennsylvania... Cincinatti and Middletown Ohio.

Then look at any or all of the airplanes that were originally designed for daily use in the mountainous areas of the US or Canada. The Aviat Husky, the DHC aircraft, Found Bros. Aircraft, Arctic Tern, etc. Not too many A-65's even on the earliest prototypes I'm guessing.

EZFlap wrote:

formulaphoto wrote:Lots of talk about the 85 or 90 engine here, but I have an opportunity to get a 65 horse J-3 for a really good deal. My airport is at sea level, but surrounded by mountains (Squamish, BC) plus lots of wind. I love the idea of the Cub and the lessons flying an underpowered plane would teach me...but am I dreaming? Is the 65 just going to be a total pain in the butt and unusable? What is the availability and cost of upgrading to the C85 or 90?

Mountains and wind combined will very often create a situation where NO small airplane can climb or make headway, regardless of MSL altitude. It is never a bad decision to have more power available when you need it, especially if you can throttle back during the times when lower fuel burn or sightseeing low and slow are more important. Not having that extra power available when you need it is frustrating at best, and can immediately turn dangerous, no matter how well it "teaches you to fly the airplane".

Look at the local topography in the specific areas where all those 40 and 65 horsepower Cubs, T-crafts, Champs, etc. were originally designed and built. Bradford and Lock Haven Pennsylvania... Cincinatti and Middletown Ohio.

Then look at any or all of the airplanes that were originally designed for daily use in the mountainous areas of the US or Canada. The Aviat Husky, the DHC aircraft, Found Bros. Aircraft, Arctic Tern, etc. Not too many A-65's even on the earliest prototypes I'm guessing.

And then there's Pops Dory.

Formulaphoto,

I got around well in the mountains with low powered airplanes, including 65 HP, because I was willing to seek the greater power of ridge hydraulic lift and hot air thermal lift. If, like glider pilots you don't have to get anywhere and just want to learn to fly the wing, the size of the engine makes no real difference.

You mentioned mountains and wind. 20 knots of wind over a ridge will give you more lift than 100 HP in no wind. 100 degrees can easily give you a 2,000 fpm ride.

So do you need to get somewhere? Do you want to be a big engine throttle Jock? Or do you want to do some of the most satisfying flying possible? If the latter, learn to manage wind energy and always know which way is down hill.

Not a J-3, but I was impressed with the 65 hp in my T-Craft, it got the job done just fine. But I also weigh 145-150, and the girlfriend was 115, but we flew it all over Idaho and parts of Montana. At sea level (one flight to the coast) it climbed out right smartly, not even close to being marginal. FWIW, another glider pilot here, I know lift when I see it Having said all that, I REALLY like the 100 plus hp of my tweaked Rotax 912S, and it gets the same or better fuel economy of the 65 Continental.

Keep in mind, where there is lift there is sink.....

Courierguy,

I hear you. 90 or 100 works nice on light two hole trainers. I think he would be happier using the 65 HP up before getting into down time and expense when he has a flying airplane. Over the years I have found most pilots to be happier when they have something to fly.

Contact

G44. This is true. That is why we have to learn to manage wind, even with bigger engines sometimes.

The advantage of low powered airplanes is that they move through updrafts slow enough to read and fully manage that energy by slowing more to take full advantage. Bigger airplanes could mitigate more of the disadvantage of the downdrafts by going faster through it, but little airplanes can do the same by diving. Both are restricted by Vne.

The little airplane will be on the ridge benefiting from hydraulic lift longer. Both need to avoid the wrong side of the ridge. Big airplanes tend to try to stay high enough and fast enough to avoid wind energy altogether. Sometimes nature intervenes.