Piper J-3 Cub — a rectangular wing that worksvsPiper PA-28 Cherokee — the Hershey-bar wing

root section usa35b → naca652415 · dihedral 1.00° → 7.00° · aspect ratio 6.945 → 5.624 · span 10730 mm → 9144 mm · area 16577850 mm² → 14868144 mm² · mac 1545 mm → 1626 mm

units

These analyses are not directly comparable

The geometry comparison below is unaffected — it is a comparison of shapes, not of runs.

  • Piper J-3 Cub — a rectangular wing that works
  • Piper PA-28 Cherokee — the Hershey-bar wing

What changed

PropertyPiper J-3 CubPiper PA-28 CherokeeChange%
Geometry
Span10730 mm9144 mm-1586 mm-14.8%
Root chord1545 mm1626 mm+81 mm+5.2%
Tip chord1545 mm1626 mm+81 mm+5.2%
Dihedral1.00°7.00°+6.00°+600.0%
Derived
Aspect ratio6.9455.624-1.321-19.0%
Area16577850 mm²14868144 mm²-1709706 mm²-10.3%
MAC1545 mm1626 mm+81 mm+5.2%
Sections
Root sectionusa35bnaca652415changed—
Shapedeviation at matched span fractions, 64 samples
Chord deviation (max)81 mm
Chord deviation (RMS)81 mm
Twist deviation (max)0.00°
Dihedral deviation (max)468 mm
Tip cap deviation (max)797 mm

Performance

CoefficientsDimensionless — how good the shape is, independent of size and speed.
ForcesNewtons and watts — what each wing actually carries and costs at this condition.
Spanwise

withheld — “Piper J-3 Cub” integrates to CL 0.002 against the polar’s CL at the same α (this analysis predates the loading reporting its own) 0.330 (0.01×); “Piper PA-28 Cherokee” integrates to CL 0.007 against the polar’s CL at the same α (this analysis predates the loading reporting its own) 0.271 (0.03×). A loading that does not integrate back to its own wing’s CL is not a coarse curve, it is a wrong one.

Efficiency
15.0020.0025.0060.0070.0080.0090.00V (kt)L/DPiper J-3 CubPiper PA-28 Cherokee

air, ρ = 1.225 kg/m³

data
V (kt)Piper J-3 CubPiper PA-28 Cherokee
59.4022.8111.06
62.6923.7812.23
67.7925.0614.04
68.1225.1214.15
72.8925.8816.37
76.8526.1718.21
78.0026.2518.66
83.1026.2120.63
85.5726.0321.58
88.2025.8522.46
93.3025.1924.17