• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Why not a....?

Utah-Jay

MEMBER
Heber City, UT
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
 
New Companion model, basically their 4 place fuselage without the rear seat or large baggage door. Shortened mount and Patrol wing. More to come
IMG_0453 (1).jpgIMG_0402 (1).jpgIMG_0422 (2).jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0453 (1).jpg
    IMG_0453 (1).jpg
    250.9 KB · Views: 298
  • IMG_0402 (1).jpg
    IMG_0402 (1).jpg
    299.1 KB · Views: 236
  • IMG_0422 (2).jpg
    IMG_0422 (2).jpg
    233.3 KB · Views: 250
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 not buy a Cessna or Maule? The magic of a Cub is enhanced by piloting it from the center.
 
Why not buy a Cessna or Maule? The magic of a Cub is enhanced by piloting it from the center.

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.
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
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.

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).
 
Why doesn’t anyone build a PA-14 side by side cub with full dual controls both left and right seat?

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.
 
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.

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
 
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!
 
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!

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.
 
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

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.
 
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!
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :lol:
 
Back
Top