Cub pucker factor

[AdamZ]

Squeezin that cub in there

http://www.aircraftowner.com/videos/view/piper-cub-tight-landing_1873.html

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Heck with the landing, I wanted to see him take off from there.

 

[jshawley]

Me too!!

 

[Tom-D]

piece - O - Cake.

 

[ajstoner21]

Thats a fine lookin Cub. Wonder how long it took until he got comfortable landing there.

 

[Jim_R]

In the comments on the video page the pilot says he lands there at the end of the season to swap the floats out for wheels. (Also says his dad got the plane in '54 for $50 plus a boat!)

 

[jshawley]

$50.00 plus a boat?! That's grand theft airplane!!

 

[Ken Ibold]

Looks worse than it is. Get your seaplane rating at Jack Brown's in one of their straight float Cubs and this won't look that hairy at all. Several of the lakes they use for training aren't much longer than this. Wider, yes, but not a lot longer.

 

[Ted]

Looks worse than it is. Get your seaplane rating at Jack Brown's in one of their straight float Cubs and this won't look that hairy at all. Several of the lakes they use for training aren't much longer than this. Wider, yes, but not a lot longer.

I was thinking that. Didn't get my seaplane rating there, but did get an hour and a half of instruction towards it at Christmas. The floatplane Cubs really don't need much space.

One thing on the Jack Brown's Cubs, though: the engines are modified to be O-200s, so they have 100 hp rather than the original 65. Does help.

 

[steingar]

Sad to hear that there's only one location on Earth where he can swap out the floats, forcing him to do such a perilous landing. I doubt I would be doing that with my very expensive airplane.

 

[dmccormack]

Now that right there looks like tons o' fun!

 

[Jim_R]

Hmm. I don't think it's sad that folks who know their airplane and know their property and have the skill the execute the flight choose to do so.

 

[dmccormack]

Sad to hear that there's only one location on Earth where he can swap out the floats, forcing him to do such a perilous landing. I doubt I would be doing that with my very expensive airplane.

Michael -- seriously -- why is your every post contrarian?

Just because this type flying isn't required in the FAA Private PTS doesn't mean it's "sad," "perilous" or otherwise wrong.

Cubs and other small, light airplanes have been used to take off and land from very, very tiny fields for decades.

You don't need 3000x75' to fly.

 

[Ted]

Michael -- seriously -- why is your every post contrarian?

Just because this type flying isn't required in the FAA Private PTS doesn't mean it's "sad," "perilous" or otherwise wrong.

Cubs and other small, light airplanes have been used to take off and land from very, very tiny fields for decades.

You don't need 3000x75' to fly.

Didn't you know, Dan? Michael flies a Cherokee 140. That makes him the world's greatest pilot (perhaps even better than Jesse, who has the t-shirt), and knows everything about everything.

 

[dmccormack]

Didn't you know, Dan? Michael flies a Cherokee 140. That makes him the world's greatest pilot (perhaps even better than Jesse, who has the t-shirt), and knows everything about everything.

I met Michael and looked over his very nice Cherokee at the WV Fly In.

I'm also impressed by his patience, creativity, and skill in Oragami.

I'm just a bit perplexed by the relatively consistent negative tone recently.



Everything OK?

 

[Troska]

Michael -- seriously -- why is your every post contrarian?

Just because this type flying isn't required in the FAA Private PTS doesn't mean it's "sad," "perilous" or otherwise wrong.

Cubs and other small, light airplanes have been used to take off and land from very, very tiny fields for decades.

You don't need 3000x75' to fly.

I can never tell if he is serious, or is intentionally just stirring the pot.

However, he does in a roundabout way bring a thought to my head. There seems to be a very risk-averse attitude on this (and other) forums - often harshly questioning the choices one might make. I'm thinking right now of a post on the red board about uncontrolled aiports and two planes on the runway - but in this case everyone says "cool". Why?

I'm not saying doing everything to reduce risk is a bad thing - but this pilot didn't do that and most people applaud his skill. Why is it different from other topics?

My take is that it was a nice display of skill.

Tim

 

[Ted]

I've met Michael several times and enjoy his company in person.

But on here recently...

 

[Ted]

I can never tell if he is serious, or is intentionally just stirring the pot.

A real questions is whether or not he can tell...

However, he does in a roundabout way bring a thought to my head. There seems to be a very risk-averse attitude on this (and other) forums - often harshly questioning the choices one might make. I'm thinking right now of a post on the red board about uncontrolled aiports and two planes on the runway - but in this case everyone says "cool". Why?

I'm not saying doing everything to reduce risk is a bad thing - but this pilot didn't do that and most people applaud his skill. Why is it different from other topics?

My take is that it was a nice display of skill.

Tim

I'd agree. There's a big propensity to make statements of "Oh, I would have [whatever]." I call bull****. Most of the things that get discussed, you have some cases where the guy was being an idiot and was in over his or her head. Those a good pilot likely could have prevented or fixed. You have a lot of cases where most pilots would do the exact same same thing, especially when you take low-hour pilots who don't fly many hours per year. Or, where the decision questioned was really the best option, and doing otherwise probably would have resulted in a worse outcome.

People typically have a hard time recognizing their own skill levels. Same goes with driving, riding motorcycles, etc.

 

[EdFred]

Michael -- seriously -- why is your every post contrarian?

Just because this type flying isn't required in the FAA Private PTS doesn't mean it's "sad," "perilous" or otherwise wrong.

Cubs and other small, light airplanes have been used to take off and land from very, very tiny fields for decades.

You don't need 3000x75' to fly.

I met Michael and looked over his very nice Cherokee at the WV Fly In.

I'm also impressed by his patience, creativity, and skill in Oragami.

I'm just a bit perplexed by the relatively consistent negative tone recently.



Everything OK?

I've met Michael several times and enjoy his company in person.

But on here recently...

He lives in Ohio, more specifically near Columbus. No further explanation necessary.

 

[dmccormack]

He lives in Ohio, more specifically near Columbus. No further explanation necessary.

Well, the Blue Jackets have been doing a bit better.

There is a gleam of hope.

 

[fgcason]

However, he does in a roundabout way bring a thought to my head. There seems to be a very risk-averse attitude on this (and other) forums - often harshly questioning the choices one might make.

I think a lot of it has to do with the severe over regulation of aviation in general along with the insane over reaction by society on the whole to anything bad happening in general and to airplanes specifically. As a result, conversations on boards and behavior in the real world tends to be influenced by it..then that becomes the standard acceptable behavior.
As for the occasional variations in attitude, every once in a while people forget they're supposed to be fanatically safe and over regulated and momentarily remember that life is about having fun and getting on with things...then they remember again.

I'm not saying doing everything to reduce risk is a bad thing

Up to a point I agree. There comes a point where once one starts becoming overly safe and too wrapped up with regulation and anti-deviation that the risk factor starts up again. When that happens, the tighter the safety grip that's applied, the more dangerous it becomes.

That video looks a fair bit like the way I grew up flying though the runway and waterway is much easier and straightforward to get into. It looks perfectly safe and rational to me. So what if it doesn't fit the profile of the nice FAA and flight instructor super safety encouraged stabilized approach into unobstructed flatsville pristine paved runway behavior of today? If the pilot knows his plane and has a reasonable knowledge of the environment, dropping the plane into that waterway is nothing.

As in all things in life, it's really all about balance.

 

[Jim_R]

I'm not saying doing everything to reduce risk is a bad thing - but this pilot didn't do that and most people applaud his skill. Why is it different from other topics?

One significant difference: This is his land, and (presumably) no one else is in the pattern for that splash of water. The risk is his, and any mistakes he makes will only affect him, not other pilots.

Similar to Alaskan bush pilots.

 

[steingar]

I engage in a number of fairly dangerous activities, flying being one of them. When I consider performing one of these activities, I think about what I'm going to do and how it fits in my skill level. If I am going to push my own envelope, I ask myself what I have to gain in so doing. If the gain is worth the risk of pushing the envelope, I go ahead.

A good example is my motorcycle. I will learn to do racing turns this summer, either at the track or in the twisting mountain roads near my home. My gain from this training is the ability to corner at higher speeds, which may assist me in avoiding a collision. I don't do stunts. Ever. Sure, I could learn, but what does it gain me? The ability to show off, which I simply don't value.

I am considerably more conservative in the aircraft. If I think about pusing my own performance envelope or approaching that of the aircraft, I'll have a serious cost/benefit analysis before I do it. What do I have to gain? Landing 6Y9 was at the edge of my own performance level. The gain was well worth the risk, and I'm glad I went. I've always thought the big show at Oshkosh was worth pushing my performance level to function in those conditions, and I thought it was worth it to do so in formation. There are plenty here who are risk-averse to these conditions. That's fine. I gain a lot; others might not do so.

As for the landing in question. I seriously doubt the landing in question was not at the performance envelope of the aircraft, since the bushes were right off the wingtips. Someone mentioned that it was a parts run. I don't push the envelope of myself or my aircraft for parts. They can be moved. What did the pilots have to gain? A hundred dollars to move their parts? I think it is utterly foolish to risk a $50K airplane and your life for a hundred dollars.

If the pilots were visiting the ancient grandparents, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. Seeing beloved family is priceless, and well worth pushing one's performance envelope. Not parts.

Call me whatever names you like. Our past is littered with the corpses and wreckage of people who pushed the envelope and lost.

 

[acropilot]

I agree with Mr. Cason's points... I think a lot of the issue deals with how some new pilots are getting into flying, and their initial training. There seem to be a lot of new pilots, out of 141 programs especially, who believe that anything other than a "stabilized" approach is unsafe and should never be done. In my experience, there have been times where a "book" stabilized approach would be more dangerous than our procedure. I have even talked to a few who do not even want to get close to flying the NYC corridor. They think it's too dangerous. While I agree that one must be vigilant, I've done the flight around 9 times now and three times with other aircraft off our wing. It's a blast!

 

[AdamZ]

I can never tell if he is serious, or is intentionally just stirring the pot.

However, he does in a roundabout way bring a thought to my head. There seems to be a very risk-averse attitude on this (and other) forums - often harshly questioning the choices one might make. I'm thinking right now of a post on the red board about uncontrolled aiports and two planes on the runway - but in this case everyone says "cool". Why?

I'm not saying doing everything to reduce risk is a bad thing - but this pilot didn't do that and most people applaud his skill. Why is it different from other topics?

My take is that it was a nice display of skill.

Tim

Oh it certainly was a nice display of skill and thats why I posted it here. It wasn't just a cub landing on a big ole lake. Also the post was not meant to be a " risk adverse thread" I wouldn't do it because well because I just don't have the skills to do it.

 

[Ted]

Call me whatever names you like. Our past is littered with the corpses and wreckage of people who pushed the envelope and lost.

I agree with the sentiment, but maintain that in many cases, nobody on this forum has the knowledge to state what that envelope is.

 

[EdFred]

I agree with the sentiment, but maintain that in many cases, nobody on this forum has the knowledge to state what that envelope is.

The thing is....everyone's envelope is different...so everyone is correct in relation to themselves if they say it's dangerous.

 

[AdamZ]

The thing is....everyone's envelope is different...so everyone is correct in relation to themselves if they say it's dangerous.

Well Said! Mr. 2500' Lake Michigan crosser:wink2:

 

[steingar]

I agree with the sentiment, but maintain that in many cases, nobody on this forum has the knowledge to state what that envelope is.

The title of the little video was "tight landing" and substantial vegetation appeared well within a quarter wingspan of the aircraft. Less substantial vegetation hit the wings on landing. If that isn't pushing the envelope, I don't know what is.

 

[Ted]

The thing is....everyone's envelope is different...so everyone is correct in relation to themselves if they say it's dangerous.

Correct to a point. There is also a difference between a video and being there for yourself. If you aren't there, you can't make the ultimate evaluation.

The title of the little video was "tight landing" and substantial vegetation appeared well within a quarter wingspan of the aircraft. Less substantial vegetation hit the wings on landing. If that isn't pushing the envelope, I don't know what is.

Trying to glide a twin in for a gear up landing, bumping the props to minimize engine damage, and expecting it to be successful?

 

[dmccormack]

Call me whatever names you like. Our past is littered with the corpses and wreckage of people who pushed the envelope and lost.

Conversely, the flying we do is indebted to those who pushed the envelopes and won.

I'm not an aerobatic pilot, but I have developed past the "85 one notch, 75 two notches, 65 final all.." lock-step approach and truly enjoy slipping to the last inch, skimming tree tops, flying down river corridors below the banks, plunking the bird down with barely enough airspeed to keep it flying, navigating by Rand McNally, and otherwise doing "dangerous" stuff.

None of this is in any PTS, yet it is part of flying.

 

[steingar]

Trying to glide a twin in for a gear up landing, bumping the props to minimize engine damage, and expecting it to be successful?

Hey, I took it back! Got talked out it. Yeesh.

 

[steingar]

Conversely, the flying we do is indebted to those who pushed the envelopes and won.

Yeah, because you can't invent anything new without some degree of risk. But there is gain in that. Pushing the scientific or aerodynamic envelope is gain in and of itself. Doing so to get parts or grins isn't.

 

[fgcason]

One significant difference: This is his land, and (presumably) no one else is in the pattern for that splash of water. The risk is his, and any mistakes he makes will only affect him, not other pilots.
Similar to Alaskan bush pilots.

This isn't about increased risk or public crashes or who's affected. It's about proficiency, knowing what you're doing, the limits of yourself and your equipment and going somewhere besides deep into the accepted safety zone happy world. Sure the bush pilots of AK waterskiing their tundra tire no floats planes across the river and running up on the way too short shoreline to stop might look insane and crazy at first. They're not doing it to show off or impress anyone or because they're wreckless. They're doing it because they have a reason to land there and knowing what the hell they're doing. Same with the cub landing. Same with me landing at our farm runway - and I can guarantee that you'll die if you try a stabilized approach or sticking your nose under the panel to read the checklist or watching the airspeed indicator. Same with the airliner doing the severe procedure oriented 0/0 landing.

I'd go as far as saying that guy putting his own well known cub in the waterway is probably one heck of a lot safer than your average CFI who's hellbent on safety.

 

[EdFred]

Trying to glide a twin in for a gear up landing, bumping the props to minimize engine damage, and expecting it to be successful?

If I'm doing it, it will be.

 

[Ted]

Hey, I took it back! Got talked out it. Yeesh.

Yes, but on the basis of potential medical bills being higher than potential aircraft repair bills.

If you'd said "You know what, I don't know if I have the skill and even if I did, that's an unnecessary risk," it'd be different.

If I'm doing it, it will be.

Did you steal Jesse's t-shirt?

 

[steingar]

Yes, but on the basis of potential medical bills being higher than potential aircraft repair bills.

If you'd said "You know what, I don't know if I have the skill and even if I did, that's an unnecessary risk," it'd be different.

Oh for Pete's sake, you know I don't know the first thing about it, spoke from ignorance, and recanted.

 

[RoscoeT]

The title of the little video was "tight landing" and substantial vegetation appeared well within a quarter wingspan of the aircraft. Less substantial vegetation hit the wings on landing. If that isn't pushing the envelope, I don't know what is.

OK, so you live in your world, others live in theirs. Lotta judgment on the personal decisions of others from someone who I'm sure has little if any J-3 experience, float experience, and off-airport experience. What do you care if there's a chance he scrapes a wingtip on the branches? It's his ****. I'm sure a working bush pilot would laugh at your "perilous" description of this landing. I'd guess you have a similar viewpoint on professional bush flying, and aerobatic airshow flying...both totally outside your realm of experience and comfort. I see it all the time in aerobatics....non-experienced folks castigating experienced folks for flying in a certain way. Everyone can judge their own skill and comfort level. If yours is limited to windless, CAVU days and 6,000' paved runways, then that's great. Others' are different.

 

[nddons]

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant this, with baseball season coming up and all.

 

[dmccormack]

Yeah, because you can't invent anything new without some degree of risk. But there is gain in that. Pushing the scientific or aerodynamic envelope is gain in and of itself. Doing so to get parts or grins isn't.

Not necessarily. All you saw was a single video.

Is the pilot an aspiring Missionary Pilot? Alaska Bush Pilot in the off season?

Airplanes are far more capable than their pilots. Very few pilots own all edges of the envelope. So why not push from time to time so on that occasion when you must make it, you can.

FWIW, when I lost power over Fairmont and returned the the field and successfully landed last fall (with no chance of a go around due to a 60' berm at the end of runway 23), I was very glad I'd been pushed during training, and pushed myself when no one was watching or caring whether I could put the airplane where it needed to be.

And I am still merely nibbling at that envelope -- there are big gaps between my skill and the airplane's ability, and this is an underpowered flivver.