steve said:Ok, we have "reviewed" the Husky's rather throughly in comparison to the Supercub. How about the Amercian Champion Scout?
I saw one downtown here the other day and it certainly looks capable...
SJ: looks can and often are deceiving as to the performance capabilities of the Airplane: Scout, Maule, or even the PA12 to name a few? Yes even the PA12 will never be a SC! The scout would be better compared to a PA12 or a Maule because the width is similar! As for strenth, the Scout has some major weakness's keeping it out of the rough stuff, as already stated the gear attach point is majorily weak the spring gear is to flexible and the tail section is not designed to take the abuse of sharp jarring that is a part of landing on unimprove ground. The wing will not fly as slow and it takes considerble power to hold it at a minimal sink rate. This makes landing over tall obstacles a challenge to master. The trim system comstricts the CG envelope severly and makes the utility use of the airplane prohibitive. To it's credit the Scout has a much better roll rate and visibility is great over the nose!
This is "opinion written down" according to the wisdom of Jerry B. that makes it "FACT".
Pretty plane like this is well suited to reside next to a M7 or a Husky in a epoxy painted hanger.
steve said:Ok, we have "reviewed" the Husky's rather throughly in comparison to the Supercub. How about the Amercian Champion Scout?
I saw one downtown here the other day and it certainly looks capable...
SJ: looks can and often are deceiving as to the performance capabilities of the Airplane: Scout, Maule, or even the PA12 to name a few? Yes even the PA12 will never be a SC! The scout would be better compared to a PA12 or a Maule because the width is similar! As for strenth, the Scout has some major weakness's keeping it out of the rough stuff, as already stated the gear attach point is majorily weak the spring gear is to flexible and the tail section is not designed to take the abuse of sharp jarring that is a part of landing on unimprove ground. The wing will not fly as slow and it takes considerble power to hold it at a minimal sink rate. This makes landing over tall obstacles a challenge to master. The trim system comstricts the CG envelope severly and makes the utility use of the airplane prohibitive. To it's credit the Scout has a much better roll rate and visibility is great over the nose!
This is "opinion written down" according to the wisdom of Jerry B. that could qualify as a "FACT".
Pretty planes like this are well suited to reside next to a M7 or a Husky in an epoxy painted hanger.
Tim
Tim
cub_driver said:Statistics
It seems when people look at accident reports the first thing they say is how come so many cubs are having accidents? Well for one they are common as crabgrass and are the perfered aircraft to be used in difficult landing areas hence more bent cubs. To compare accidend reports of cubs to Scouts, Huskys or Arctic terns would be like comparing drownding reports of people who go swimming vs people who do not.
I have flown in the back of Citabrias and would say it is a nicer ride then the back of a cub. They will haul a good load off a 600 foot strip and as a Citabria fly friend of mine would say the moose dosen't care he's not in a Cub. Point being you can get by without a cub you just need to know the limitations of your airplane, all planes have limitations the cub is no different. The Cub is however the King of STOL if you don't believe that you have never needed STOL.
All of the above aircraft are good planes depending on your needs or your bank account. I would say airplanes are kinda like sex the worst ride I ever had was just wonderful.
Cub_Driver