This is the first time I have flown one of these
 since I was fourteen or fifteen. I forgot how bad it
 was.

 Horrible handling airplane. Terribly un coordinated.

 Don't learn in it unless you can afford to spend twice as much time
 and money. The flying skills you learn are then useless for flying any
 other
 type of modern aircraft.

 However it is fun and challenging :)

 Paul Lamar
 --



 Flying something like a Cub or Champ will make the automatic parts of your
 brain ready to work without you thinking about it. You call it bad, but
 it's actually perfect for flight training. If you can make the Cub do your
 bidding, the only problem you'll have with the RV is getting used to its
 small and light control inputs. Some people might over-control in the first
 few moments of transition. Hopefully you will get you a bit of stick time
 in another RV before having to do it solo.


 Matt-

 The reason it is bad is nobody designs an airplane today with out due
 diligence to coordination and aero balance of the controls. There is no
 upside to uncoordinated and unbalanced controls. It is like an old unstable
 car. Yes you can learn to drive it but why do that if it can be made
 stable. Therefor I disagree with the idea it is perfect for flight
 training.


 Get lessons in a C172. After you have your license get checked
 out in a Cub if you feel the need to find out what it was like to fly in
 the
 1930's. Build a replica of the Wright Flyer if you really want to learn to
 fly a bad airplane. Yes it was the first barely controllable airplane but
 technology improves.


 The other Cub drawback is the early versions did not
 have flaps so the flare is very nose high which totally obscures the runway
 ahead. In fact Piper lost a huge law suite about 30 years ago because of
 this factor. As I recall it bankrupted them. This had a very negative
 effect on the light plane industry. Cessna stopped building and selling
 piston powered aircraft. Congress had to enact a law prohibiting liability
 suites for products 17 years or older.


 Paul Lamar



 Hi Paul, I think the big suit at that time was against Cessna for
 failing seat latches that would leave the pilot in the back seat hanging
 on to the yoke after lift off. I did not see any comments on my "Bass
 Akwards" article. With such a knowledgeable group, I was expecting
 something. http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2010-11_bass.asp
 There is a link to a side splitting segment from Top Gear.
 -- Murry

 That was another one.
 I had to modify my 182 for that one.

 Paul Lamar

 "The trike arrangement with the single front wheel leads to terminal
 oversteer, a spinout, when pushed to the limit."

 Not necessarily true. Under steer over steer has nothing to do with where
 the wheels are and how many. I don't think he knows what he is talking
 about using these terms in this context. Slip angles vary with load
 and tire construction. The coefficient of friction of a tire also varies
 with load. Higher load lower coefficient of friction. Therefor side
 force generated can vary widely. The major effect is the CG being behind
 the center of side force. If what he says is true fully locking tails
 wheels would
 be more popular. Has anybody on here flown a fully locking tail wheel?

 Paul Lamar


    Less than 40mph stall speed and you need flaps ? Virg

 Have you ever hit a pickup truck on the runway at 40 MPH? :)

 The flaps keep the nose down at slow speeds so one can see.

 Paul Lamar


The problem with the j3 isn't lack of flaps, it's the angle of incidence of the wing.. And that you solo from the back seat.

The cub has such a narrow speed range and such low wing loading, it doesn't need flaps.


Matt-

True it does NEED flaps but it would change the stall angle and the angle
of attack when landing making it easier to keep going in the right direction
down the runway. Here is a cheaper solution. A periscope! :)

Paul Lamar