Just got my tailwheel endorsement!

[WeaverJ3Cub]

Congrats and just let me say regarding the assortment of aircraft for rent in your area: you lucky duck! There's ONE tailwheel (an Aeronca) within an hour of here for rent that I have come across.

You're right, Steve! I expect to take full advantage of this opportunity....there aren't many places that I'm aware of where you can rent a Cub, let alone a Champ, Taylorcraft or Stearman. Only catch with all these is that the school doesn't carry ANY insurance on the planes, so to fly the Cub, for example, I have to carry $25k in hull coverage. But hey, it's worth it.

I agree, Frank! Nothing better. That's what flying was meant to be!


Don't worry, though. I still use the radio-equipped planes and land on pavement. I'm not totally gone!

[Flyfalcons]

You guys sure have some sweet airplanes for rent.

[Bill Greenwood]

Weaver, I was just joking about that metal prop, hey if the owner wants 99% of his Cub, from the prop aft to look great, who cares about that funny looking thing on the front.
Seriously, I can bet you no land J3 ever came out of Wiilamsport with a metal prop. Not only does the wood one look great but many people think it is better and kinder on the hands for hand propping. Sort of like hugging a lady made out of flesh as opposed to one made of vinyl!
I think there is some thought that a metal prop may be less subject to erosion like for water takeoffs.
Man if you have access to all those planes, if you have the time and a little money go get a checkout in each type, probably a few hours in each will do.
Then when you are ready go get some Stearman training. When you are good in that you are REAL GOOD. I wish I had more Stearman time, hope to go back and do it some day.

By the way, that radio in the Cub won't really hurt you, if you don't turn the infernal thing on.

[RetroAcro]

Agree that wood props look and feel better on Cubs, but metal performs significantly better...as on any airplane.

[WeaverJ3Cub]

Yes, wood definitely looks better! I've always thought that the metal ones look slightly out of place.

Thanks for the tip, Bill. I'd love to get some time in the Stearman. It sure looks like a fun plane! Oh, and the Cub doesn't have a radio.....sorry I wasn't clear. But if it did, I wouldn't turn it on!

Thanks, "flyfalcons." It sure is fun just to stand around on a busy day and see all the different types that come in. And the Labor Day airshow is something to behold.

[WeaverJ3Cub]

RetroActo, you mentioned that wooden props feel better on Cubs. Not having flown anything with a wood prop before, do you mind explaining how exactly they feel different?

[RetroAcro]

RetroActo, you mentioned that wooden props feel better on Cubs. Not having flown anything with a wood prop before, do you mind explaining how exactly they feel different?

Feels better on the hands when hand propping! :-) Also with wood props, you generally feel less vibration in the cockpit, but this can depend on the prop.

[Bill Greenwood]

Metal performs better? Not so sure about that. In a low powered airplane like a Cub, I'd bet there is not a nickels worth of difference between the performance of metal or wood props.

One of the highest performance type aircraft of WW II era, the late model Griffon Spitfires, with climb rates of almost 5000 fpm, and top speeds at 444 mph, use all wooden prop blades with of course metal hubs.

And I am not sure, but guess the Spiteful which is the post war derivative of the Spitfire also had wooden prop blades, and a top speed over 490 mph, the fastest prop fighter of all.

As for vibration , I have seen some wood props that were bad as well as some metal ones that were good. I think it depends on having the blades balanced correctly, both weight wise, as well as the blades all tracking true so they pull the same. One blade out can make a big shake.

The worst shake I have ever felt was in the Tri Motor doing rides last year at EAA. I tried to talk to the pilot, but he brushed me off with, "they all do that" which of course is not true. I hope they get it fixed, I think is borders on dangerous like it was, and at the least will lead to cracks around the engine.

[nrpetersen]

The few wood props I've flown behind are noticeably quieter and have less ringing. Presumably the wood blades have better damping than metal, suppressing the engine crankshaft vs propeller torsional vibration mode. Typically this will be noise around about the 200 Hz frequency.

Metal props can be quickly wrecked by water spray too though. Water can filet the leading edge of seaplane in a few seconds in a seaplane.

[RetroAcro]

Metal performs better? Not so sure about that. In a low powered airplane like a Cub, I'd bet there is not a nickels worth of difference between the performance of metal or wood props.

The difference is real and noticeable, but a metal prop is not going to turn a J-3 into a Super Cub. The long-time Cub guys indicate the same thing. This has been discussed at length on the Cub forum. There are pros and cons to each type (for any airplane), but wood will never be selected for efficiency. Have you ever flown Cubs with both wood and metal? I fly a wood-propped Clipped Cub that is upgrading to metal for a little extra performance. I'll try to get some good numbers when it's on.

It's impossible to make a wood blade as efficient as a metal one due to the relative weakness, grain separation, and flexibility of wood compared to aluminum. Wood must be thicker, especially near the tips, which prevents optimal airfoil design. Look at any comparable metal prop vs. wood - the leading and trailing edges are much more blunt with wood. Wood flexes much more and does not retain its pitch and shape as well as the rigidity of a metal prop allows for.

Even on aerobatic airplanes, metal props are generally more efficient than even composite props...and composite props are a step up in efficiency compared to all-wood, due to the fact that the wood-core composite prop is much stiffer than all wood, but not as stiff as metal. Even with composite props, the airfoil must be more blunt to retain strength and integrity. I've flown composite and metal props on my Pitts, and the metal is noticeably more effcient, even though the difference in performance does not make for a vastly different airplane. But here, the advantages of composite props generally outweigh the cons.

As far as vibration goes, wood has the potential to be smoother than metal, simply due to the vibration dampening characteristics of wood. Same with wood-core composite props. A good wood/composite prop is much smoother than even a perfectly balanced metal prop. I've experienced this in my Pitts. A wood prop being out of balance is a different issue, so ultimately, smoothness is limited by balance. But all things being equal, you will definitely experience less vibration with wood.