Talk:Piper J-3 Cub/Archive 1

Move to Piper Cub
Ideally, I'd like to move the current contents of the Piper J-3 page to the Piper Cub page as a kind of disambiguation page. All information about what people consider a Piper Cub would be there, while specific information on the Piper J-3 (vs. Taylor E-2 vs. Piper PA-18...) would be on individual pages. Thoughts? McNeight 23:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably the Taylor Cub, J-2 etc should stay here as part of the J-3's heritage. Probably also mention should be made of the PA-11, PA-18 (Super Cub), and today's lookalikes (Cub Sport and Legend Cub) as attempts to keep the J-3 alive. However, there is no place on a J-3 page for discussion of the J-5 and other significant departures from the tandem-seating Cub line.


 * I'm against moving the page. The immortal aircraft is the J-3 Cub. If anyone wants to create a page on Piper Aircraft, that would be grand. --Cubdriver 18:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A page on Piper aircraft is kind of what I'm aiming for; specifically Taylor, Piper and others who have aircraft derived from the Taylor E-2 Cub. A lot of the information on this page is aimed towards the generic Piper Cub, where I'd like to have the page Piper Cub serve almost as a general reference and disambiguation page for the type, with Taylor E-2, Piper J-3, Piper PA-11 and others linked from it. Is that a better description? McNeight 18:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, if nothing J-3 is lost to the existing article. --Cubdriver 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that the move wasn't made. Actually, I think that the correct title should be Piper J-3 Cub. The redirect gets us to the right spot, but the discussion is more about the Cub than the specific J-3 model. "Piper J-3 Cub" covers the bases. Oldpilot (how do I date this? It's 20 May 07)


 * Well, the trick is that there were multiple aircraft that can be called "Cub". The Taylor E-2, which was the first iteration of the Cub, has a separate article, as well as the Piper J-4 "Cub Coupe" and Piper J-5 "Cub Cruiser". I obviously never followed up on my intention to turn Piper Cub into a generic Cub / disambiguation page instead of a redirect to this page, but I still think it's a good idea. Eventually. (oh, and you can sign your name and add the date with four tildes in a row - ~ ). McNeight 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Honda Supercub? Model T?
Surely that should be the Ford Model A. The T was mighty primitive and would equate to say a Jenny. As for the Honda Supercub, I have never heard the Piper Cub compared to it. In fact, I've never heard anyone mention the Honda Supercub in any connection! --Cubdriver 10:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the comparison to the Model T is fair in that it was a simple vehicle and widely popular (and mass produced) because of that simplicity. Comparing generation to generation, you are probably correct, but I think the comparison to the Model T is how William Piper got the nickname "Henry Ford of aviation".
 * As for the motorcycle, I think there is no comparison. The "Supercub" was introduced in the 1958, over 25 years after the first Cub's started rolling off the line. If there can be a proven link between the names (much the same as how the Ford Mustang was named after the P-51 Mustang, which isn't mentioned in either article), then it maybe can be put in the See Also section. McNeight 16:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to tell you that the last time I saw a Model T on a public road was in the summer of 1941. The owner was a Mr. Woodman and the place was Rollins Cove Road in East Alton, N.H. Even then they were regarded as a joke. My father told me how when the bands on the planetary gear began to wear and you couldn't make it up the hill, you simply turned around and backed up. But even my father wouldn't dream of actually buying and driving one. A Model A, on the other hand, was a desirable car in 1941 and remains a desirable car today. I know two people who own and drive them for pleasure, though only in the summer. I wince at the thought of a Cub being compared to a Model T--known even in its heyday as the "flivver"--whereas the Model A is spot on. --Cubdriver 22:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that the Piper Cub and other similar aircraft have been refered to as "flivvers" only lends more credence to the comparison. And, for what it's worth, I've seen Model T's on the road as recently as the late 1980's, where I can't ever recall having seen a Model A. McNeight 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Me-109 kill
Is this confirmed? It sounds kind of bogus/urban-legendy to me. A reference would go a long way. ericg ✈ 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never read or heard a credible account of an L-4 "kill". I have however heard a story that sounded real wherein a Bf-109 did set out to shoot down an L-4 in Italy. The Cub driver began turning 360's around a farmhouse being use as an artillery command post. The Americans in the CP all piled out with their carbines and began taking shots at the 109, which was having plenty of trouble staying in one spot and getting a bead on the L-4. Finally the German pilot flew away. --Cubdriver 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So the story about an L-4 causing a 109 to crash in our article here - legend or fact? If it's crap, we need to trim it; if it's not, we probably ought to anyway. It's unusual, not notable. I'll probably move it to this section of the talk page by the weekend if no one can find anything one way or the other. ericg ✈ 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If I remember to check when I get home, I've at least got a reference to an L-4 taking a round in a lift strut from an Me-109 cannon. I don't recall off the top of my head if there was a dogfight or a clear victor, but I'll check and see. McNeight 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

An L-4 “Grasshopper” once found itself pursued by a German Messerschmitt Bf-109, outmaneuvered it and caused it to crash, and was credited for a kill.

I'm moving this here for right now. There are plenty of wartime anecdotes that could be listed, and I'm not quite sure if or where to list them. McNeight 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't vouch for an Me-109, but I've seen an Fi-156 credited to an L-4 nicknamed Miss Me. I wish I could recall the source... Trekphiler 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

J for Jamouneau
While I realize that the Smithsonian link states that the J is for Jamouneau, I believe that the book by Peter Bowers states that the J stands for "J" (model sequence was E-2, F-2, G-2, H-2, and there is/was no I-2 due to potential confusion between I and 1). Technically, if Taylor had hung around, the J-3 might have wound up designated the K-2.

This seems to be a point of contention between aviation historians in general. Aside from the dueling references, I'll try to find a more definitive answer (if there is one). McNeight 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a point of contention! What aviation historian claims that the J was for the designer? Indeed, we know that J-2 was not for Jamouneau because, as you point out, it was the next logical designation in view (and Jamouneau had nothing to do with the J-2, as I recall). The number was fixed because it referred to a design for a two-seater trainer. Taylor was on leave when Jamouneau redesigned the J-2, and was so upset by the changes that he left the company. Now perhaps Mr. Piper was so entranced by Jamouneau's revisions that he decided to bet the company on the Jamouneau connection, but I think it's much more likely that (not having Taylor's close connection with the E-2 to J-2 evolution) he figured that "J" had become so well established that he should keep it as the fixed quantity, while changing the number. And it's true that J-2, J-3, and J-4 are much more of a family of airplanes than E-2, F-2, and G-2. Shows the difference between the airplane builder Taylor and the airplane seller Piper. --Cubdriver 21:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, a couple other sources cite J for Jamouneau as well. Check the article's references, as I don't remember which, though there were definitely at least two. One of those sources also mentions that Jamouneau was the one who developed the J-2's now-familiar Cub shape. ericg ✈ 23:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that two people can be wrong as easily as one! If the J is for Jamouneau, then who were the E, F, and G for? And why was it the J-2 and not the J-1? No, there is no serious aviation historian who writes that the J-2 was named for Walter Jamouneau, only amateur-written websites that echo one another. Peter Bowers, who is an aviation historian, wrote the best history, "Piper Cubs", in 1993. The first lettered aircraft from Taylor was the A-2 Chummy: "A for the first model of the new company [then called Arrow Wing], -2 for two seats." It was followed by the B-2 Chummy, a glider model D, and finally the E-2 Cub. So clearly the alphabetization was established by the time Taylor Aircraft began to manufacture the first Cub. It was followed by the F-2, G-2, and H-2, which sold a few copies or none. When Jamouneau redesigned the Cub, it was an E-2 that he touched up. Taylor was so furious that he fired Jamouneau, so it's ridiculous to think he'd name the plane for him. Writes Bowers (pp. 13-14): "In later years this J designation came to be accepted as J-for-Jamouneau. Actually, it was a logical progression from the H-2, skipping the letter I that could be mistaken for the figure 1."

It was at this point (in part because of the Taylor-Jamouneau spat) that Taylor left the company and it became Piper Aircraft. The J-2 was a great success, as such things were measured in the 1930s, so Piper retained the letter J and (until the postwar years) simply added numbers to create the J-3, J-4, and J-5.

Power/Mass vs. Mass/power
I don't really know much about aircraft and how their specifications are listed, but right now it reads: Power/mass: 18.75 lb/hp (11.35 kg/kW)

That is Mass/Power

Should it be rewritten to be: Power/mass : .0533 hp/lb (.0881 kW/kg) ?

--Adam (http://www.ifobos.com) 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Top Importance?
Why is this article rated as top importance? This aircraft isn't particularly well known or notable. I'm not sure it should even be high importance. Abc30 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're joking, right? The Piper J-3 is the Piper Cub, one of the most highly recognizable aircraft in the world. ericg ✈ 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In the world? Or in North America? I've never seen one of these aircraft before and I've spent half my life looking at planes. Surely the Cessna 172 if far more recognisable than this thing, and yet that article is only 'high' importance. Abc30 11:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The 172 is certainly a notable aircraft, but it's also a recent aircraft. There was a time when the skies were filled with Cubs, just as before that the skies were filled with Jennys. That you have a hard time seeing a Cub in the air today does not negate the contributions of the Cub to history. McNeight 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of judging based on age, but "half my life" is an exceptionally relative term – it could be five years, it could be forty. I hope you understand why it doesn't give us any perspective on your knowledge base. I could say that I've spent at least 3/4 of my 22 years learning about aviation, and that's a little more meaningful, but not much. Knowledge doesn't equal years.


 * Anyway, writing about history is just as important as writing about new developments in aviation - there were (and are) more Piper Cubs built (19,000+) and in existance than P-51 Mustangs (15,000+), for example, and the 737 has had a production run of a mere 5,000+. ericg ✈ 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't pretend to be an expert, but the ≈20,000 aircraft built is enough on its own to make it at very list mid-importance, and possibly high-importance. In my "humble" opinion, anyway.  Ingoolemo talk 19:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying the Piper Cub isn't of high importance is like saying that a Model T isn't an important automobile. The generation of pilots that flew in World War II and Korea were trained largely on Cubs, and just as "Cessna" is synonymous with "small GA airplane" now, "Piper Cub" was as recently as 30 or 40 years ago. (The decline of taildraggers in general has led to a decline in its awareness among the general public, but even now, the Cub is the "standard" taildragger.) Furthermore, the Piper Cub design directly influenced that of the Aviat Husky, the Legend Cub, and the Cub Crafters Cub, the latter two of which are very well-known modern Light Sport Aircraft, and the Husky is quite possibly the most capable production bush plane in the world. (As a comparison, the Cessna 172 design has been the basis for...exactly zero aircraft. Well, one, if you count the 172XP "Hawk", which was really just a souped-up 172.) The Piper Cub is absolutely of high importance.--chris.lawson 23:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So it should be High importance then. Not Top importance. Let me quote the criteria for the importance levels seeing as none of you seem to understand my point:


 * Top - Subject is a "core" topic for this project, or is generally notable to people other than students of aircraft. Historical aircraft (aircraft involved in aviation firsts) usually get a Top-Class rating. (eg. Wright Flyer, SpaceShip One).


 * High - Subject is notable or significant within the field of aircraft, but not necessarily outside it.


 * You've convinced me that this is a highly important aircraft, but my point stands that this is incorrectly rated on the importance scale if the criteria are correctly followed. Abc30 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What, so in 50 years, when Cessna's 172 has been discontinued and largely forgotten by non-pilots, it won't be worthy of top importance either? I would make the argument that both the 172 and the Cub are of top importance, as the two best-known "personal" aircraft to three generations of the non-flying public. As has been said before, 40 or 50 years ago, people didn't refer to any light airplane as a "Cessna"; they referred to it as a "Piper Cub" (or "like a Piper Cub"). Just because it isn't well-known by the non-flying public now doesn't detract from its historical significance and previous public familiarity.--chris.lawson 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Cub is highly recognizable to people other than students of aircraft. Not to everyone, but to most people. I'm not sure why you've never heard of it before, but just because you haven't should not mean that nobody has. Stepping back to gain a little perspective helps sometimes. I certainly understand your point, I just think it's flawed. There is a difference. ericg ✈ 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As a non-pilot, I would agree with ericg. — ceejayoz talk  17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rate it high to very high. My mom, who knows nothing about aviation, used to think every light plane was a Piper Cub, 'cause that's all she knew... Trekphiler 14:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't well known? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha maybe not on mars, common, this is the cub man, it taught america to fly baby, also %70 of people from the cubs era learned to fly on it, it was the cesna 172 of it's time. Supra guy 06:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Top - Subject is a "core" topic for this project, or is generally notable to people other than students of aircraft." What a PERFECT description of the role of the Cub in 20th century culture! It's one of the very few planes - perhaps the ONLY plane - that virtually everybody who's NOT an aviation enthusiast is familiar with. For three generations "Piper Cub" was a generic term for light single engined civil aircraft. Even today the term is still used that way by many older folks. There is no other airplane so universally known and recognized by people unfamiliar with aviation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.239.179 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I’m one of those “older folks,” (70+) and I never did know much about aircraft. But in the jargon of the late 1940s and early 1950s where I grew up, “Piper Cub” meant “fixed-wing, single engine small aircraft.” Much as “Scotch Tape” meant any cellophane tape. When I found out that there was a company called Cessna, I felt very sophisticated at my new knowledge. For what it is worth, I vote for giving the Cub the highest rank. WPL in PA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.61.163 (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Piper J-3 vs Fieseler Fi 156
"In Europe, the final dogfight of WWII occurred between an L-4 and a German Fi-156 Storch. The pilot and co-pilot of the L-4, Lts. Duane Francis and Bill Martin, opened fire on the Storch with their .45 caliber pistols, forcing the German plane to land. This was also the only known instance of an aircraft being downed by pistol fire during the war."

What's the exact source? I mean this incident doesn't sound that likely to me... The Fi 156 looks better "armored" (at least it weights more than two J-3's together) and despite of the slightly superior characteristics the point that really confuses me is the fact that the "Storch" was equipped with a MG, wasn't it? And how much damage could a .45 cal pistol (most likely a Colt 1911 I guess) cause to such a plane (when you manage to hit it anyway) I mean in that case - recapitulating these arguments - it would seem pretty insane to attack such a plane with a pistol in a "real dogfight"

So.. could someone maybe provide additional background informations of this 'fight'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias Rigling (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you go to the citation for this anecdote, the source is self referencing; it cites its own source as Wikipedia. 24.61.80.84 (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't; the ref cited is this one - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Which gives Wikipedia as its source, this is called self-referential.88.217.127.174 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems to have been newly added as it wasn't there the last time I checked that page. Good point though, it will be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've read about this incident for years and years in published books. Of course, I can't recall any of them now, but I do know I've read about it in print. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can find a ref it can go back in! - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Piper Break Down for Truck Transportation
Folks,

I think some will find this link of interest of a WW2 J-3 broken down for truck transport by the US Army. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to the Cub Club
I think this article would greatly benefit from a link to, and possible mention of, the Cub Club (www.cubclub.org). The Cub Club is the official Type Club for the long-winged Pipers (E2, J2, J3, J4, J5, L4, HE-1, PA-11, PA-12, PA-14 and PA-18) and has been supporting these models since 1983. They provide technical support for these models and author a bi-monthly technical newsletter dedicated to the restoration and maintenance of Cubs.

209.242.234.87 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) coffejor


 * Links to type clubs have a been a long debated issue on Wikipedia, because most of the links are nothing more than promotional in nature and therefore WP:SPAM, which is why we have a consensus standard for the issue at WP:TYPECLUB. Please read that and see if you think your link will qualify. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. One could argue that a company or organization that has been providing technical support for the model that is the subject of the article for over 25 years truly deserves a mention in article and, at minimum, an external link. Unlike most Type Club, that are simply social organizations, the Cub Club provides information and technical support for the long-wing models. A link to the Cub Club is much more fitting than a link to a company like Cub Crafters or American Legend. 209.242.234.87 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"J" models should not have dashes
If you reference most Piper blueprints, the applicable Type Certificate Data Sheets, and the applicable manuals for the J-series of aircraft, there should be no dash between the "J" and the corresponding number.209.242.234.87 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC) coffejor


 * The official FAA TCDS for the aircraft designates it a J-3, with the dash. We actually have a new standard on exactly this issue as a result of a similar case. This specifies that if the common sources, like the company website, documentation and such, conflict over designations then the TCDS prevails in choosing the correct designation. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ATC-660 only applied to ships SN 1999 to 2327 (which was the first to be registered under A-691), manufactured prior to 10/15/39. Quoting ATC-660: "1100 thru 1200, and 1999 and up manufactured prior to 10/15/39 eligible. Approval expired as of that date." The majority of the J3's (approximately 19,573) were produced under TCDSs A-691, A-692, TC-695, and A-698 which specify "J3", without the dash. Although I will succeed the point about the J2 by deferring to ATC-595, I will not succeed the point about the J3 based on ATC-660. If you are working on a J3 today and attempt to reference ATC-660 as if it applies to your aircraft, the FAA will not recognize it (unless your ship is among those first 327 manufactured). So no, ATC-660 IS NOT the "official FAA TCDS for the aircraft" 209.242.234.87 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)coffejor


 * So what we have is different TCDS that contradict each other on the designation, although the first one issued uses J-3. As per WP:COMMONNAME most other sources seem to use J-3, so overall I am not seeing an argument here in favour of changing it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But the bulk of the OFFICIAL information (Piper Manuals, TCDSs, Blueprints) do not use a dash. The only OFFICIAL information that uses "J-3" is the one TCDS that you first mentioned (ATC-660). - coffejor 209.242.234.87 (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't matter, the policy on article naming WP:COMMONNAME is that we use the most commonly used name and our own Wikiproject standard says to use the TCDS when the other sources conflict, but in this case the TCDS conflict. You can note that, for example, officially on the TCDS the Cessna 400 is called a "Model LC41-550FG", but we stick to the most commonly used name. You will note that Piper J3 Cub is an existing redirect to this article, so this really is a non-issue, any one looking for J3 will be sent to this article anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the J-3 or J3 designation was never meant to be used without a third letter. Back in the 1920s and 30s, the most common format of aircraft designation was a three letter/number mix with no hyphen and the final letter usually indicating the type of engine installed. (cf. Waco and pre-1962 US Navy designations) However, this later gave way to the now standard American format of letter-hyphen-number-[letter] with the suffix letter indicating variant and not engine type. So the "J-3" designation with a hyphen arises from trying to force the Cub to use a designation format that it was never intended for.

Unfortunately, because this article has to refer to all Piper Cubs, regardless of type of installed engine, there may be no way around using the "J-3" format. –Noha307 (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Military L-4 Manual Links
Seeing as these would be of value:

(1943) T.O. No. 01-140DA-1 Pilot's Flight Instructions L-4A and L-4B Airplanes

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55896180

1945) AN 01-140DA-2 Erection and Maintenance Instructions for Airplanes Army Models L-4A, L-4B, L-4H, and L-4J British Model Piper Cub

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55895618

Please consider for inclusion.

Pelzig (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't have any objection to including these are external links. I hate to ask, but the first one is classified as "restricted". I realize that these are very old, but were they ever unclassified? Do we know? - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've no reason to doubt that the manual has long been deemed unclassified given it was from WW2 and the type isn't even in service any longer. - Pelzig (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC).


 * That makes sense to me, I have added them at "External links". - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

DoD film
possible external link (would use the Internet Archive short film template) http://www.archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.2569837 DoD film about Piper Cubs in WWII Jdybka (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Piper Worldwide (suggestion)
I noticed that on Friday, there was an photo change (with no justification in talk page), which was later reversed. As this was a photo I had never seen before, on the use of Piper not by US or British Empire, I thought, why not avail and use that photo in a new section named for example "Piper Worldwide" or "Piper elsewhere"? Since, although it seems that was a airplane widely used in the world, yet there is not a section in the article about this. 189.33.222.3 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A section like that might be useful, but only if there are some refs available to give it some useful content beyond a couple of photos. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Excessive Flitfire images
So far user:Cubgirl4444 has been reverted by User:BilCat (3 x), ClueBot NG, User:Xx236, User:Ahunt, User:NiD.29 (x 3) and User:Nigel Ish over her adding a considerable number of images related to the 8 surviving examples of the 48 examples donated to the British, and due to some disruptive editing. Much of the discussion so far has been on user talk pages rather than here unfortunately. NiD.29 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the photos and the text represents undue weight on the subject, while the licencing of many of the photos is also dubious - how can someone release a photo under a free licence when they don't know the source or the author?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the coverage that was proposed to be given to this minor side note in the Cub's history was excessive. We have a separate article at Flitfire, but it is now at AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of the text in the Flitfire article (and potentially some of the text removed from here) was a copyvio from and has been removed from the Flitfire article.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piper J-3 Cub. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121082920/http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/GENERAL_AVIATION/piper/GA6.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/GENERAL_AVIATION/piper/GA6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Most Produced Aircraft needs citations
Howdy all Wikipedians! This aircraft appears on the list of most-produced aircraft but there is no citation for the production figure cited in that article. I respectfully ask your help in adding a citation, along with any necessary explanatory notes about the production figure (e.g. whether it includes licensed production and significant minor variants, and if so, which ones). Thanks in advance! Carguychris (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Added pictures of a J-3 and Super Club on floats
I tried to add two pictures of J-3 float planes to the Wikipedia page here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_J-3_Cub. Unfortunately, every time I "saved the page" the pictures I had added disappeared. I thought I had done something wrong, when I saved the revisions. So I tried to load the images again. I rarely, contribute images to Wikipedia, and believed I had made an honest mistake. Well, now I see a message, from Ahunt that I am involved in an edit war? Nigel Ish said, "revert spamming of personal photos - this is not your personal website". Well I already have a personal website on Flickr ;) . I did not see that others had edited my content until just now, when I clicked on the revisions tab. I don't even know how to contact the people/editors who are removing these images. These are my own pictures, of aircraft I flew, and I felt that pictures of this iconic aircraft on floats was important for many aviation enthusiasts, who have operated this aircraft on pontoons. If that is unacceptable to Wikipedia then let me know. However, now you know why I kept editing the Piper J-3 Cub page, when my uploaded images disappeared.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J_3_at_float_dock.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Super_Cub_in_Georgian_Bay.jpg

Moved image of Super Cub (PA_18) over to PA-18 page. MAS pilot (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My objection to the Super Cub photo was that it does not belong in the J-3 article as we have an article on the Piper PA-18 Super Cub, so it was "out of scope" here. My objection to the J-3 on floats photo was that is is a poor photo, with bad lighting. If you think the article needs a J-3 on floats then the photo at right is far better. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Standby. I will upload a better J-3 on floats picture to Wikimedia Commons :).MAS pilot (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Just added a picture of mine of a J-3 on floats. J3 at dock.  on J-3 Cub page. If you have a problem with my picture, you can upload the picture you reference per J-3C-65 Cub. Which is a very good image, you could upload yours too;) MAS pilot (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)MAS pilot (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Um, that isn't my photo, it is from Commons. Yours is "okay" just needs the caption fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, the J-3 picture, from Commons you link is actually also from Airliner.net, https://www.airliners.net/photo/Piper-J-3C-65-Cub/1154975/L where it says " This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission". So can an image on one site, that is copyrighted, be imported into Commons? MAS pilot (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Not normally, due to the incompatible licensing, but if you read the whole image file page you will see further down: Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2012031610008051. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying to learn more, I uploaded a picture a while back, Air Canada Airbus 319, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Canada_Air_Lines#/media/File:Air_Canada_Airbus_319_in_Trans_Canada_Airlines_colours.JPG but couldn't log into this NEKskier account anymore. What happened? Anyawy, Ahunt, I have learned a lot. Thanks MAS pilot (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:NEKskier seems to exist. Is that your account? It isn't blocked or anything, as long as you have the correct password it should log in. You probably need to be aware of WP:SOCK however. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not using the old account, can't log in to it, as email account, and password were saved on an old computer. By the way, just saw you messages, which went to spam folder, sent to my e-mail address. I have to log in to a separate Spam account to read the messages, which I rarely do. MAS pilot (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Incidentally, the only post I ever made as NEKskier, was to upload that one image of an aircraft (I flew) to the Trans Canada Airlines page.MAS pilot (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)