Thanks: 
Likes: Why doesn’t anyone build a PA-14 side by side cub with full dual controls both left and right seat?
Seems a no brainer to me. I just prefer side by side over tandem, but it seems no one builds them
Why doesn’t anyone build a PA-14 side by side cub with full dual controls both left and right seat?
Seems a no brainer to me. I just prefer side by side over tandem, but it seems no one builds them
Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
https://www.instagram.com/jay_townsend_utah/
Might be something to do with the torque tube interconnection?
Check out the Bearhawks!
I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!
They do it is the 4 place cub. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvUB8UhtKv
DENNY
mike mcs repair liked this post
New Companion model, basically their 4 place fuselage without the rear seat or large baggage door. Shortened mount and Patrol wing. More to come
Why not buy a Cessna or Maule? The magic of a Cub is enhanced by piloting it from the center.Originally Posted by Utah-Jay
The long wing Maule looks really good looking at the numbers for slow flight.
I was really just inquiring, I am not building one. My wife likes sitting side by side, I doubt she would ever fly tandem as she is not even good riding in the backseat of a car.
Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
https://www.instagram.com/jay_townsend_utah/
I had not seen this, very niceNew Companion model, basically their 4 place fuselage without the rear seat or large baggage door. Shortened mount and Patrol wing. More to come
Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
https://www.instagram.com/jay_townsend_utah/
DENNY
I have watched that video a few times, and the Airframes 4 place looks cool, but I believe Kirk is building that plane with a single stick in the middle isn’t he? I am sure he could build dual sticks.
I like the longer wings on the cub for sure.
Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
https://www.instagram.com/jay_townsend_utah/
Full plex on both sides makes the rear seater much more comfortable but in truth my wife prefers the 180 over a Cub. I’m fortunate that she’s supportive of keeping both. I think she sees them as his and ours.
Backcountry still offers their Boss 4-place Cub.
About 15 years ago, Maule introduced their M4-180V--
a round-tailed, 2 seat (side by side) taildragger.
It was very attractively priced-- just under $100K for a fixed pitch model,
and about 10K more for a constant speed.
Their competition at that time seemed to be the Top Cub & the Husky--
both of which were priced quite a bit higher.
I figured they'd sell gobs of them.
Within a couple years, prices jumped to $129K & $139K--
still quite a bit lower than the competition.
Within another year or two, they discontinued production,
so I'm guessing they just weren't selling.
There's one of these airplanes based near me,
and while there's a few things I would have done differently,
it's very nice looking & appears to be nicely built.
The only thing I can figure for them not selling better is that people prefer tandem seating.
But what with all the "bush flying" & "backcountry" videos these days,
I can't help but wonder how they would sell in today's market.
Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
I have watched several of his videos and I think the difference is between the experimental version and the STC version (which I think has the single center stick, but I also think in one video he also said there is an STC out there for cessna style dual yokes).
The PA 14 did come with dual controls. Are you asking why no certified planes are built this way now?
Most people building the PA 14 knock-off (WagAero 2+2) are putting in dual controls. That's what the drawings have.
Our first plane was a Pacer, it was perfect fit for us and she loved sitting next to me. One day she got to fly in the back of my friends cub. It only took her about 30 min to figure out the view was a lot better in the cub so new plane approval went fast. Find a cub with glass door and see if you wife likes it. We have a 180 but my wife prefers the cub due to the view. If I did get a side by side I would prefer a yoke to a stick getting in and out is easy with a yoke. DENNY
That Bearhawk Companion looks interesting
Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
https://www.instagram.com/jay_townsend_utah/
No doubt that Kirk Ellis 4 place is the bomb
Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
https://www.instagram.com/jay_townsend_utah/
Sorry, didnt see this video was posted already. Video shows one stick, but pedals on both sides which leads me to believe there's a removable stick on px side.
I love light 180s. They should have built them with sticks, like the Clipper. I am only 80, but have no trouble getting in and out of a J4.
In 1976, three of us got together to buy an airplane. Candidates were the Mooney (160mph) the Maule (same, at least advertised) and the 180. We bought the Mooney - a truly neat machine. Then in rapid succession we got a 210hp Maule and a 1959 180.
The Maule ranked dead last in just about every category we could put it in. A bit harder to land than the 180, way slower than advertised, and cramped inside. If you don't mind steering wheels and going slow, a 180 hp Stinson is a lot better airplane in a whole bunch of ways.
Opinions, all.
For a low time guy? Buy a 172 and learn to fly. Get a couple hundred hours and then you’ll know better what you want and need. And for a low time pilot a 172 is plenty capable of off airport where a low time guy is likely to go. Cheap to insure. Comfy cabin. Great airplanes!
Tri Pacers used to be cheap enough to chop up and modify. The Producer was the result, which seems to be the answer to your question.
https://www.john2031.com/piper/pa-22...formation.html
N1PA
This ^^^^^ is excellent advice. I did this 34 years ago. Actually bought a 150 but quickly traded it for the 172. There's a reason that Cessna sold so many 172's, they are one of the best all around planes to own. They do nothing spectacular, but easy to fly, maintain, insure and will let a low time pilot learn from most mistakes without balling it up. I have had several other planes over the years, but have kept the 172 for it's basic easy flying qualities. It's the one I fly when the winds are going sideways. I flown it into places that were marginal, but it never let me down.
I still have that same 172 after 34 years. Sadly it is going to younger pastures this spring, yet, every time I fly it, I realize what a great plane it is and have second thoughts on why I decided to let it go.
One of the prime advantages of tandem seating is the pilots view on both sides of the aircraft. For ground observation it is superior. Certainly the passenger in the rear has less visibility. Often the tandem aircraft are preferred by pilots, not necessarily by passengers.
if you want a side-by-side hot rod get a pacer put a 180 and a skylight in it, pull back seat so that you have it in cargo configuration and you’ve got a super performer quick on the controls with loads of baggage room. Put on the longest set a droop tips you can get in you’ll have just about the equivalent of a stock super cub wing without the round tips.
I've been wanting to build a 4 place cub type. A Bearhawk would be the easiest, probably, since there are plans available, but I keep pondering the idea of a 46" wide Supercub, fuselage lengthened by a couple feet, and maybe a riblett airfoil, IO-390..... Gotta wrap up current projects first, though.
I love my Super Cub and the tandem seating for playing on unimproved surfaces but not so much for flying places with my wife especially if she is in back swing around in rough air. I have a rear view mirror that points at the back seat and sometimes it isn't pretty. Our Pacer and Tri-Pacer were ok but get a little cramped. The new to us 182 is great for us in the travel mission.
While I am a low time pilot, every hour of my flying has been tailwheel, so why would I want to go tricycle?
To learn to fly. Landing is an itty bitty part of that. Forget the internet hype that taildraggers are some badge that you’re cool. Airplanes are tools. Choose the tool that makes the best sense for the job.
Best tool for the job, agreed. We are flying up into the Idaho backcountry starting next spring to fly fish. So a taildragger is the correct tool.
I started this thread out of curiosity as the -14 seems really nice.
We are currently flying a Rans S-20, but will be transitioning to a S-21 with a 915iS next month. My wife loves the side by side, and has stated when asked about tandem that I could count her out of a back seated plane.
Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
https://www.instagram.com/jay_townsend_utah/
A friend’s wife always stuck to a rule. Nobody in her family was allowed to fly with anyone that had fewer than 500 hours. Smart lady. Crawl before you walk, walk before you run.
When I get to 500 I will call ya to take you up
How come you didn’t stop yesterday? Who was the Champ behind you?
Sarpy Sam
I am a confirmed tailwheel nut, about 95% of my time is in them,
but I have to point out that there's plenty of nosedraggers flying in the backcountry.
So except for pretty extreme places, generally a taildragger is a "wanna-have", not a "must-have".
Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
Ok, I will give the whole truth... I have about 7 hours in a nosedragger, I prefer the tailwheel.... Just more fun
The Rans S-21 is a very viable side by side, and it’s all metal construction and kit design allows for a very fast build.
The Bearhawk line is likely one of the most under appreciated designs out there, for its Jeep like utility, cub-strong fuselage design and faster cruise speeds.
Their lack of marketing and investment into gaining sales is a large part of what holds them back from being a Vans or Rans company.
And sure, I’m a tailwheel addict myself, so the Maule and the 180 have their placeholders as well.
But there are some really good basic aircraft that can go 80-90% of the places most lower 48 fun pilots go.
I learned to fly in a ‘69 Musketeer with 180 hp off a grass field behind the barn we mowed and therefore called a runway. It would go maybe 50-60% of the places I personally now go, but it’s a great all around airplane. Like a 172, or 182, or even the lowly opinioned Cherokee. I didn’t even know they make a Stol kit for a Cherokee, and yet we have one in the shop with full Stol kit installed-belly flap and all!
Sure, it has no cool factor. But sometimes value, viewpoint and the right attitude beats ego. I’d like another 180 Musketeer. Maybe my family would fly with me.
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
Last edited by Farmboy; 01-24-2021 at 09:10 PM.
90% of being cool is looking cool. Taildraggers with big tires look cool. A milk stool parked next to a Carbon Cub on a river bar has no cool factor. It does show the pilot that flew it there knows how to fly well enough to get there but nobody will notice that. The two Shock Cubs and the Carbon Cub local to me wear their pricey Bushwheels out taxing and flying off hard surfaces. There is a guy here with a Piper Colt with 135hp conversion that flys circles around them. He's a lot more fun to hang out with.
I don’t know how many are to be found in the USA or the certification status there but the Auster J Series are 3 and 4 seat tail draggers with a similar layout to a Bearhawk or PA-14 or Producer with sticks, 100 knot cruise around 1000lb useful load and serious STOL capability. Also cheap to buy in airworthy condition. Most of them have weird (but interesting) British engines but there’s a few around fitted with O-320 or O-360 engines. Around $35000 would buy a nice one. It’s effectively a development of the Taylorcraft. I have a J5/G with the Blackburn Cirrus 155hp engine, she’s 1456 lbs empty and 2450 gross. I noted a project plane for sale in the UK with an O-360 for a heady $10 000.
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
'There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty".
Margaret Thatcher
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks