Piper J-3 Cub — a rectangular wing that works

by foil.tools··Full-scale·open — remixable
units
Span
10730 mm
Area
16577850 mm²
Aspect ratio
6.94
Taper
1.00
MAC
1545 mm
Sweep
0.0°
sections: usa35b at root → — at tip
CL at cruise
0.330
CD at cruise
0.01257
L/D
26.3
Span efficiency
0.789
Lift
0.5001.001.5040.0060.0080.00velocity (kt)CL
Efficiency
10.0015.0020.0025.0040.0060.0080.00velocity (kt)L/D
Drag polar
0.5001.001.500.0500.100CDCL

The Cub's wing is a rectangle: constant chord, no taper, no twist, barely any dihedral. 35 ft 3 in of span, 178.5 ft² (16.6 m²), and a flat-bottomed section sitting on two spars and a lot of ribs.

The rectangle is the point

A tapered wing is more efficient — less induced drag for the same area, less structure outboard. A rectangular wing gives up some of that and gets three things back:

  1. Every rib is the same. For a 1937 aeroplane built in volume, that is the whole argument on its own.
  2. It stalls at the root first, for free. A constant-chord wing runs its highest local lift coefficient inboard, so it drops the inboard wing first without needing washout. The Cub gets the Cessna's stall behaviour without the Cessna's twist.
  3. It is forgiving of being repaired badly, which for an aircraft still flying in large numbers eighty years on is not nothing.

Because this wing genuinely is constant-chord, the model's planform is not a simplification here — root and tip chord are the same number, which is what the aeroplane has. The section is the usual caveat: USA 35B is what the type is commonly documented as carrying, and it is the one used here.

This is a fit to published dimensions, not a replica. foil.tools draws a single-taper planform shaped by four splines; the real wing has structure this model does not carry. Span, area and section match the published figures — the metrics above are what this geometry actually produces, so where they differ from a published number, the difference is the fit.

Sources: Piper J-3 Cub (Wikipedia) · AeroCorner technical data

The polars above are foil.tools' own analysis of this model, not published performance data for the aircraft. They are AeroBuildup — strip theory with NeuralFoil sections — for the wing alone, so they exclude the fuselage, the undercarriage and everything else that makes a real aeroplane slower than its wing. Read them for how this shape behaves, and for comparison against the other wings here — not as a figure for the aircraft. Open it in the designer and run your own.

Discussion