Austers v Piper Cubs

Auster Fan – the J/160 conversion can also be the V/160 conversion.
The first one was done by Beagle on G-ALXZ which converted a Mk.V to
Lycoming 160hp. Effectively the front end is then very similar to D series.
A number have been converted to this configuration – They also feature
a fin fillet to help keep them in a straight line. Another one has been converted at Leicester to Lycoming 180hp which makes it fairly similar to a Workmaster. I was involved in finishing off G-AHAU which was formerly a J1 . She now earns her keep as a glider tug on the Isle of Man.
Regards the AOP.9(Mod) picture – I took it so feel qualified to comment. The conversion was carried out by Beagle in the late 1960’s to a very similar
standard as the AOP.11 . It does however feature a Lycoming 180hp motor.
She is now flying so I should be able to post some pictures shortly that give a better idea of her.

David

Thanks for the clarification – I’m always keen to learn more about Austers.That also explains the entry in G-INFO and what engine ‘HT has. I realised that it wasn’t a “proper” AOP11 (if that is the right thing to say!) when G-INFO said it had an IO-360 and not a Continental IO-470. I think it is probably time to rejoin the Auster Club. My flying in Austers is currently limited to a couple of trips in G-AHHH and one in G-AGXV at Leicester in 1989! Still wonderful, all the same. I must admit that I prefer Austers with Gypsies/Cirrus engines as opposed to American engines, if for no other reason that their props turn the right way IMHO!!!!

Couldn’t agree more! A gentlemanly draw!! I just adore Austers, as like others of their time, DH, Miles etc, they have so much character. As I have said in other threads, Austers are what got me interested in aviaition at the ripe old age of 4 (so my Dad reckons!) -G-ARNB and G-ASFK in particular. Halcyon days……. 🙂 🙂 🙂

Ah, the good old days. They don’t build ’em like that any more (oh sorry, I forgot that a lot of homebuilts are still of the same type construction)

If you think that is odd, look at the Auster B4 freighter prototype or the Auster A2/45 Avis – they are just ugly! The proposed successor to the AOP9, the Beagle E3/AOP11 was better looking than the AOP9, IMHO.

Not really, the AOP 11 looks like it’s been overfed for about 6 months

Auster Fan – the J/160 conversion can also be the V/160 conversion.
The first one was done by Beagle on G-ALXZ which converted a Mk.V to
Lycoming 160hp. Effectively the front end is then very similar to D series.
A number have been converted to this configuration – They also feature
a fin fillet to help keep them in a straight line. Another one has been converted at Leicester to Lycoming 180hp which makes it fairly similar to a Workmaster. I was involved in finishing off G-AHAU which was formerly a J1 . She now earns her keep as a glider tug on the Isle of Man.
Regards the AOP.9(Mod) picture – I took it so feel qualified to comment. The conversion was carried out by Beagle in the late 1960’s to a very similar
standard as the AOP.11 . It does however feature a Lycoming 180hp motor.
She is now flying so I should be able to post some pictures shortly that give a better idea of her.
Yak Fan – the Mk.IV/V Austers are I feel the best of the bunch. A friend
has a Mk.IV which saw service on D-Day . Pound for pound I think they are fantastic warbirds.

I need to check when I get home. I think, although I may be wrong that it is an AOP9 re-engined and modified to AOP11/Beagle E3 standard with the original Bombardier engine replaced by a Lycoming(?). The original Beagle E3/AOP11 prototype was G-ASCC and was a one-off. On the other hand this could be total BS and simply a re-engined AOP9 and nothing further! I do seem to remember that Major Mike Somerton-Raynor at Middle Wallop had something to so with this aircraft at some point in its life. Open to be told this is total cr*p!!!!

Its the one from Middle Wallop. Interestingly a friend of mine was at Spanhoe (where the picture in Flypast was taken) and he was told that the conversion on the aircraft was carried out by Beagle. I am not sure of the accuracey of this though.

G-ASCC, the only AOP 11, is still owned by Peter Bolton (International Auster Club membership secretary) and based at his strip near Nottingham.

Talking of Austers, what on earth is that oddball variant which is pictured in the news section of Flypast this month, it just looks wrong to me!!!!
I’m starting to gain respect for my friends Auster V, even if it was used in it’s spotting role last night to check where I was.

I need to check when I get home. I think, although I may be wrong that it is an AOP9 re-engined and modified to AOP11/Beagle E3 standard with the original Bombardier engine replaced by a Lycoming(?). The original Beagle E3/AOP11 prototype was G-ASCC and was a one-off. On the other hand this could be total BS and simply a re-engined AOP9 and nothing further! I do seem to remember that Major Mike Somerton-Raynor at Middle Wallop had something to so with this aircraft at some point in its life. Open to be told this is total cr*p!!!!

Talking of Austers, what on earth is that oddball variant which is pictured in the news section of Flypast this month, it just looks wrong to me!!!!
I’m starting to gain respect for my friends Auster V, even if it was used in it’s spotting role last night to check where I was.

[QUOTE=David Burke]By far the best performers are the converted J1/160’s which have stunning ability and the benefit of being able to haul a decent load .
QUOTE]
I didn’t realise that any J/1s were re-engined in this way. Do you not mean J/5s or the Auster D series? Not wishing to doubt your probable superior knowledge – just not of heard of this mod!

I have flown and flown in most types of Auster and also Super Cub 150. From
an engineering point of view the Auster is better made in terms of strength.
The Cub has the advantage of easy parts supply but the Auster with a few simple mods can get pretty close to it.
By far the best performers are the converted J1/160’s which have stunning ability and the benefit of being able to haul a decent load .
Possibly my favourite flight was one of the last of Auster 1 G-AIXA before she was retired to the RAFM. For a cheap to operate warbird that will outlast you I recommend the Auster IV/V series as they are both light and nimble .
The later Aop.6/T.7 series suffer from weight gain which does nothing to improve their agility.

Joe, Sorry I can not make the AGM, bit too far to travel. You see, I live on that little bit of an Island thats fallen off the bottom of ‘Oz’, Tasmania.

That’s almost fallen off the bottom of the WORLD!!!

MH

Hi 1946

You are lucky not to have suffered a bounce or two (or three), I did some horrendous one’s when converting on to the Auster. I preferred to come in on the slow side but my instructor was always accusing me of ‘dragging it in’.

Managed to nip the wondering all over the runway in the bud though, my instructor just told me to a pick and object in the distance and keep lined up with it (there is usually a tree nearby that’s suitable). Anyway works for me.

Are you attending the AGM at Leicester this month?

Joe, Sorry I can not make the AGM, bit too far to travel. You see, I live on that little bit of an Island thats fallen off the bottom of ‘Oz’, Tasmania.

OK, so that’s two different stories and they can’t both be right. Tell you what, I’ll fight you for it. 🙂 Actually I don’t care too much which is the correct story, I just love Austers. I think they are great little planes. Like most British built aircraft of the period grossly over engineered,
especially considering they are rag and tube construction.

Couldn’t agree more! A gentlemanly draw!! I just adore Austers, as like others of their time, DH, Miles etc, they have so much character. As I have said in other threads, Austers are what got me interested in aviaition at the ripe old age of 4 (so my Dad reckons!) -G-ARNB and G-ASFK in particular. Halcyon days……. 🙂 🙂 🙂

Always a good way to start a spirited ‘discussion’. I have flown both and own one. I have about 1.5hrs on a Cub and about 5hrs on an Auster. So guess which I own? yes, the ‘oyster’, a pure 1946 J1 powered by a lovely little Cirrus Minor 2. You would be lucky to get the quoted 100hp from the Cirrus on a good day with a following wind. As for the handling, both are reasonably forgiving but do not suffer fools. As for the so called dreaded Auster bounce on landing I have yet to suffer it, a matter of a good approach, at slow speed, well judged flare, at the right height, hold off, the closer the ground gets the further back you come with the stick, if you suffer a little ‘spip’ just keep the stick back, provided it is not a heavy one, in which case ease off-fullpower and go round. My greatest problem is getting off in a streight line with out using up all of the width of the runway.

Hi 1946

You are lucky not to have suffered a bounce or two (or three), I did some horrendous one’s when converting on to the Auster. I preferred to come in on the slow side but my instructor was always accusing me of ‘dragging it in’.

Managed to nip the wondering all over the runway in the bud though, my instructor just told me to a pick and object in the distance and keep lined up with it (there is usually a tree nearby that’s suitable). Anyway works for me.

Are you attending the AGM at Leicester this month?

Mike
Glad we came to similar conclusions! What actually happened was that A L Wykes imported six Taylorcaft Model Bs under the guise of Taylorcraft Aeroplanes (England) Ltd in 1938. Various alterations in the basic design led to the manufacture and development of the Taylorcraft Plus C in England, followed later by the Plus D which was a Plus C with a Cirrus Minor. The original Auster I was the military version of the Plus D and post war civil Austers were developed originally from the military Auster V. The Auster Aircraft company name didn’t actually come into being until 1946, when it was changed from Taylorcraft Aeroplanes (England) to avoid confusion with the American aircraft with the same name. Hope this hasn’t bored you all rigid!!

OK, so that’s two different stories and they can’t both be right. Tell you what, I’ll fight you for it. 🙂 Actually I don’t care too much which is the correct story, I just love Austers. I think they are great little planes. Like most British built aircraft of the period grossly over engineered,
especially considering they are rag and tube construction.

Auster V Cub

Always a good way to start a spirited ‘discussion’. I have flown both and own one. I have about 1.5hrs on a Cub and about 5hrs on an Auster. So guess which I own? yes, the ‘oyster’, a pure 1946 J1 powered by a lovely little Cirrus Minor 2. You would be lucky to get the quoted 100hp from the Cirrus on a good day with a following wind. As for the handling, both are reasonably forgiving but do not suffer fools. As for the so called dreaded Auster bounce on landing I have yet to suffer it, a matter of a good approach, at slow speed, well judged flare, at the right height, hold off, the closer the ground gets the further back you come with the stick, if you suffer a little ‘spip’ just keep the stick back, provided it is not a heavy one, in which case ease off-fullpower and go round. My greatest problem is getting off in a streight line with out using up all of the width of the runway.

Taylor came to Britain and built the Auster incorporating the changes he wanted to make to the Cub. Don’t take this as gospel as it is just a story I heard so I can’t guarantee how much truth there is in it

Mike
Glad we came to similar conclusions! What actually happened was that A L Wykes imported six Taylorcaft Model Bs under the guise of Taylorcraft Aeroplanes (England) Ltd in 1938. Various alterations in the basic design led to the manufacture and development of the Taylorcraft Plus C in England, followed later by the Plus D which was a Plus C with a Cirrus Minor. The original Auster I was the military version of the Plus D and post war civil Austers were developed originally from the military Auster V. The Auster Aircraft company name didn’t actually come into being until 1946, when it was changed from Taylorcraft Aeroplanes (England) to avoid confusion with the American aircraft with the same name. Hope this hasn’t bored you all rigid!!

Mixtec, the reason that the Auster looks Cub like is the same reason they both bear similarities to the Taylorcraft is that they were all designed by a guy called C G Taylor(don’t ask me what the C G stood for, I don’t know) and I will tell you the story I heard as to how this came about. CG Taylor designed the Taylorcraft aircraft but I am not sure how William Piper came to run the show. Anyway CG wanted to make some changes to the Cub which Piper disagreed with and the two of them went their separate ways. Taylor came to Britain and built the Auster incorporating the changes he wanted to make to the Cub. Don’t take this as gospel as it is just a story I heard so I can’t guarantee how much truth there is in it

I don’t like the AOP9, it’s engine looks a bit odd to me 😀

Sorry? the AOP9 engine looks right it’s the flat engined one’s that look odd 😀 Have flown in a J1/n and AOP9 and liked both but sadly I cannot compare them against the Cub family as I have never flown in one 🙁 (yet, but I will)

Any Austers in the U.S.A.? I’m probably in the market for a light lightplane.
Looking at Maurice Hammond’s Auster the other week really impressed me.
The front seat actually looks useable….I’m 6’4″ and it’s hard for me to get in a Cub…
If any of you have an Auster over here…and it’s cheap enough, I’ll take it!

John

Don’t know whether this might help you(?):
http://www.austerclub.com/

I’m 6’4″ and it’s hard for me to get in a Cub…

John, Is that the J-3 / L-4 you’re talking about? If so try the PA-18-95, the low powered flapless Super Cub… it’s much roomier and is soloed from the front seat, but still has a lot of the lightweight old-world charm of the older types. I’m 6’4″ and fit in that just fine.