Originally posted by JohnBuckner
Nobody can answer that question since you did not state which Cub you have. Cubs are arguably the most modeled airplane in history and literally different kits in the hundreds and that goes back to the thirtys.
Now with that much variety in design of one aircraft you will find as much varience in stuctural design philosophy as there are designers. Such differances as I beam spars with or without shear webbing, Box spars, beam spars, single spars, two spars, sheeting to form a 'D' spar, aileron spars, solid ribs, built up ribs and the list goes on. Because of this differing design philosiphy of course some will require the lift struts and some won,t even with ships of similar sizes.
I only recently witnessed A wing fold on a large Taylorcraft simply because the purchaser of the aircraft forgot to put them on when they were a structurally required part of the airframe. While at the same time a Hanger Nine eighty incher has no problem at all.
John
As above, the cub is by Graupner
http://www.rcuniverse.com/reviews.ph...ew&reviewid=20
I put the spar in, but I can't comment on its strength b/c I have nothing with which to compare it (this being my second plane ever). I'll email Graupner. Think of this: physically, my cub's wings are subject to no greater force than any other wing (and probably less than aerobatic planes, as this is a scale flyer). So, from a physics standpoint, is the cub's wing any more likely to fold than say a wing of similar dihedral, length, etc? The answer must be no.
I would guess that an aerobatic plane's wings would be under greater stress--most of them have no struts.
So it goes back to the strenght of the spar, the quality of the kit, and the fastidiousness of the builder.