Flying Magazine Article on Huskys

Sub titled "A supercub pilots search for truth" - the article in the October 2003 Flying magazine on Huskys. In which, the author states that the Husky is just as good as a supercub - even better than a "stock cub" and it will get in and out just as well as any super cub.

Better read this one... I'm checking to see if "husky.org" is still available...

sj

steve said:

Sub titled "A supercub pilots search for truth" - the article in the October 2003 Flying magazine on Huskys. In which, the author states that the Husky is just as good as a supercub - even better than a "stock cub" and it will get in and out just as well as any super cub.

Better read this one... I'm checking to see if "husky.org" is still available...

sj

Click to expand...

Or maybe, BS.org...

How would Flying magezine know. They fly spam cans for fun.

delete

diggler said:

Flying magazines are just like hunting magazines. No matter what you are flying or what gun you are shooting all they do is tell you how great they are. If I was a editor and offered a Husky to fly for a few days for free I would say it was great also.

Click to expand...

Diggler...you forgot the other issue...the editors keep their noses brown to keep the advertising dollars rolling in. THey would do the same for supercubs if New Piper would advertise what great airplanes USED supercubs are

Bill

You guys need to ease-up. Husky's are damn nice airplanes. So are "spam cans." I love my Cessna. I like my 12. I'd be proud to fly a Husky. At least Aviat has the balls to produce a real airplane in the 21st century. I'd put my money on a good Husky driver against an average Cub driver. And vice-versa. What counts ain't the arrows, it's the Indian.
SB

Thank you, Stewart, well said. I've seen a guy in a light 180 kick a Super Cub driver's jeans in the right circumstances.

I now have as much Husky time as Cub time. I'd take either one, any day, for any job.

Now, there are some differences, and one is better at this, and the other is better at that, but all in all, they are both nice airplanes.

But if I have to move four quarters of moose and a camp, a 206 will beat the heck out of both of them put together.

They are all great airplanes. Pick one you like, and fly it, that's what it's all about.

Mike V

SB,

I agree. It takes balls and money to be producing these days. I didn't mean to sound like I didn't like the current production aircraft. Quite the opposite, I like many of the new designs, particularly some of the experimentals coming out now. A shame it is almost impossible to come up with a certified aircraft these days (we own a 206G in addition to the 12...and the 206 actually flys). Unfortunately, I am one of the guys that still engages in the Ford vs Chevy debate (Ford trucks all the way...with a manual tranny), so I gotta stick up for my brand.

Bill

Bill,

Of course, you are absolutely correct about editors. Take the New Piper Meridian, for example. A few months ago, one of the flying magazines ran a feature on the plane. They talked about how it is a six seat, serious cross country ($1.7 million) airplane.

I then read the specs given with the article, and it turns out the Meridian is a single seat airplane (as tested) with full fuel, which, by the way, is only a little less than 3 hours, with IFR reserves. Course this thing goes a ways in 3 hours, but it has absolutely no useful load. But the writer was fawning all over the thing.

Apparently, New Piper felt the same way, since they just managed to increase the gross weight, thus improving the useful load a bit.

On the Super Cub side of that same equation, take a look at the latest Water Flying magazine articles on the "Top Cub" that Kenmore Air is using for flight instructing. The author raves about how well the airplane performs at it's maximum legal weight of 2000 pounds gross weight, and how they flew it at that weight several times in his preparation for the article. Only problem is that Cub is on EDO 2000 floats, and isn't approved at 2,000 pounds. He also talks about how CC removes the header tanks from Cubs, since minor accidents frequently cause fires when header tanks are ruptured, and splash fuel on radios.

Right, I sure couldn't find any evidence of such an accident in the last ten years of NTSB records. But, I'm not selling mods.

You're right, there is often some BS involved in magazine articles. You just gotta read all the details, and read between the lines sometimes.

Now, of course, all MY articles are absolute gospel.

And, if you believe that, I've got a bridge over the Chena River that I am willing to deal on. Give me a call.

Mike V

mvivion said:

You're right, there is often some BS involved in magazine articles. You just gotta read all the details, and read between the lines sometimes.

Now, of course, all MY articles are absolute gospel.

And, if you believe that, I've got a bridge over the Chena River that I am willing to deal on. Give me a call.

Mike V

Click to expand...

Mike,

Very well said, but for the record...I tend to like your articles...and you do stress pilot proficiency over a lot of the fancy mods...which I tend to agree with (possibly due to lack of money). As for the aircraft Pireps...they are still fun to read and quite interesting especially the performance tables, but the idea is to sell the plane. As for the Chena bridge, we already have the old Cushman Street bridge (the old one lane version) out near Nome, spanning the Kuzitrin River on the Kougarok Road so I probably don't need another one out there.

Bill

I'm not knocking Huskies. I've got one in the shop right now but for the type of flying I do I'd rather fly the L18C.

I guess the thing that irked me about the article, and caused the initial post had little to do with a Husky (which I admit are pretty airplanes, I am just tall and long legged to fit in their fixed front seat), and more to do with the comment that it could get in and out any place a supercub could.

I think one of the IMPORTANT things I have learned about STOL from all you folks out there is that WEIGHT is EVERYTHING in a STOL operation. The husky is a heavy airplane (which is why his comparison to the top cub is probably apt), and a light cub should whip it's butt if the nut behind the wheel knows what he is doing.

NOW even myself, Mr. Supercub.org would fly one around for a week and say nice things about it if given the chance...

sj

Steve,

Don't be so quick to discount the performance of the Husky as compared to the Cub. You are absolutely correct, weight does equal performance, but power and aerodynamics are also part of that equation, and the Husky has lots of thrust (the Top Cub has the HP, but can't deliver the thrust THE SAME as a constant speed prop can) and don't forget that the Husky has a different airfoil, and those magnificent flaps.

As to takeoff performance, I doubt there are many Cubs that can compare with the Husky's takeoff performance, particularly in challenging situations, such as floats and skis.

Landings, on the other hand, really do require much more skill on the part of the Husky pilot to keep them short. It can be done, but it takes a good bit of skill, and a lot of practice to stay current at short stuff on wheels in the Husky.

As I noted in my earlier post, they both have their favorable attributes.

If it were to be a ski/float debate, there's no question in my mind that the Husky would beat most Cubs, with comparably skilled pilots.

On wheels, the edge would likely go to the Cub, because of its landing characteristics.

Weight is certainly important, but it isn't everything. Take a single engine Otter, you would be astounded at the takeoff performance of the thing. It'll whip any 185, 180, or dang near whatever off the ground. Keep it light, and it'll compete with the Cubs and Huskys.

I also have to give Cub Crafters credit for producing some pretty light (it's all relative) Tob Cubs. I think they've done a great job of weight management. They are producing "dresser" Cubs which weigh less than 1200 pounds, and some less than 1100, which isn't bad in the real world.

The advantages the Husky has are the wing, particularly the flaps, and the constant speed prop. Those help in some regimes, but not all.

As you noted, though, the nut attached to the stick is what makes it all function. With a loose one of those, they're all just bags of hardware.

Mike V

This whole STOL debate is mostly crap. If you want to put 5 gallons of gas into your empty plane on a Saturday morning and go act like a bush pilot, you're kidding yourselves. Fill the tanks. Load the plane until there isn't a cubic inch left for your underwear. Tie a couple of packs to your struts. Leave your home base on a gusty, rainy day because that's the day you scheduled. Now go land it on a muddy, bumpy patch of rock that's 250' long. Or better yet, take back off. A whole lot of guys operate like this during September up here. These guys could do it in a Cub OR a Husky. The primary reason they keep their planes light is so they can carry more. If the hunt is successful they get to make a couple of extra trips, too. My 180 will legally carry 1400# at 175 mph and still get in and out of places that most of you won't take your cubs. But it's just a crappy spam can. Not into 250', but I bet most of you won't go into 250' loaded, either. So go load your Cubs a couple hundred pounds over gross and tell me how good your STOL is.
SB

Stewart,

How do you really feel?

sj

My reference to spam cans is referring to Cessna 150, 172, Cherokee's and the like. The 180/185 is an awesome airplane. My general comment was about the airplanes used by the masses.

I also submit that the huge advantage Cubs have over ALL comers is the ability to operate on and off soft terrain. If you can ferry light loads, the light footprint and slow landing speeds open up terrain that isn't available to anyone else.
SB

Stewart,

I couldn't agree with you more on all counts.

Frankly, the limiting factor on all these airplanes, particularly the really spiffy Cubs and the Husky's is what the owner perceives he can afford.

Most folks who are really working the woods aren't flying Cub Crafters Cubs OR Husky's. Too much at risk, and there's a lot of risk in that realm.

Mike V

stewartb said:

This whole STOL debate is mostly crap. If you want to put 5 gallons of gas into your empty plane on a Saturday morning and go act like a bush pilot, you're kidding yourselves. Fill the tanks. Load the plane until there isn't a cubic inch left for your underwear. Tie a couple of packs to your struts. Leave your home base on a gusty, rainy day because that's the day you scheduled. Now go land it on a muddy, bumpy patch of rock that's 250' long. Or better yet, take back off. A whole lot of guys operate like this during September up here. These guys could do it in a Cub OR a Husky. The primary reason they keep their planes light is so they can carry more. If the hunt is successful they get to make a couple of extra trips, too. My 180 will legally carry 1400# at 175 mph and still get in and out of places that most of you won't take your cubs. But it's just a crappy spam can. Not into 250', but I bet most of you won't go into 250' loaded, either. So go load your Cubs a couple hundred pounds over gross and tell me how good your STOL is.
SB

Click to expand...

Amen

Or leave early in the morning overgross and come back 6-8 hours later with empty tanks but farther overgross with 30 or more landings each at a never before landed spot under your belt.

I would like to make one point I feel makes a Cub a better bush plane then a Husky, that's parts. If you are flying the bush there will come a day you will be needing to make a field repair. If you flying buddies don't have a spare part in there back shed you can buy a new part from Stodderds or Glacier air parts. There are alot more resons why I perfer a cub over a husky for bush work, but the big ones are parts and weight.

Cub_Driver

I agree. One husky gear leg $1200. 6 week wait Priceless. But I guess there are limited number of people needing them so it is supply and demand.

Any more the guys flying people out are very weight conscious and don't push the limit too much. The risks are too high. So it is pay for an extra trip or don't go. Most of the drop off pilots live or are based close to their areas and usually are not full of fuel.

The cub is a whole lot less work to get unstuck in the deep snow. overflow and sand/mud/bushes than the others mentioned especially the single otter.pak

Having picked up the tail and moved Cubs around in the snows of winter (or plain ol' ground of summer for that matter) and then attempted to pick up and move a Husky... :-?

Cub wins every time.

I can't imagine trying pull a Husky out of trouble without a come-along or a winch.

Don't get me wrong, they are a nice airplane, just different and must be treated as such.

Brad

Kinda like wimmen ???

Well Dave, that analogy may hold some water but I'll bet there would be a whole lot of hollaring (or perhaps weeks of icy silence) were you to offer winching the female half of the sketch out of a mud puddle or snow bank rather than extending a helping hand. :roll:

delete

My neighbor across the street writes for Hot Rod magazine, Corvette Fever, and some mustang mag. He said that in days past (and not all that long ago) one of the managers would walk by his office and throw a piece of paper on his desk and tell him to ?grab a car (often his) and the photographer and go to Joe?s shop and have the article on my desk by next week.?

The deal was pretty simple?the part manufacture and the shop would both donate their services and then make a mint from the sales that resulted from the article and therefore, they would continue to buy advertising pages in the mag. Scratch mine and I?ll scratch yours.

He says that now, all bets are off. Now the manager just walks by and says ?have an article on my desk by next week, and it better be good!? and it?s up to him to find a vender and shop to donate stuff. He said this comes from too much competition in the ever expanding aftermarket for hotrod parts. Sooner or later you?ve got to ?bad mouth? someone to make the new guy look good and the whole thing (as an industry) is starting to backfire on them (the mags) and you don?t sell a lot of advertising space to disgruntled venders. Although the mags have always done it, the push is really on for the long term ?project cars? because it?s easer to say?"and so-and-so helped"?instead of coming up with a whole new car and product each month.

So don?t take what you read in the mags about products as gospel (sans advice that doesn?t push a product or vendor) it?s a business and nothings going to change that.

Check the size of the Avid ad in the coming months and don?t be surprised if it?s bigger.

The 83 inch MT prop is only approved in Germany on the Model A-1 Husky, not the A-1A or the A-1B. Those airplanes are not approved (or approvable) in Europe, due to the new noise regs over there.

Further, the 83 inch prop is restricted to turn at 2400 rpm, which limits your 180 hp engine to 169 hp. Seems to kinda negate the purpose, unless you are trying to get more thrust with minimum rpm, for European purposes.

In any case, to use the German stc in the US requires a field approval. You all remember what that means, right? MT doesn't have a US stc yet, but this may be forthcoming.

I've heard from at least one US participant, and he isn't happy with it, but seems it's likely a sorting process.

I'm using the 80 inch Hartzell, but frankly, the 76 inch Hartzell, which comes stock on the airplane, pulls like a tugboat. It'll outpull your Borer every day, and it never gets rock damage, managed right. It's pretty hard to beat. I can't tell any difference with the 80, except it permits removal of the restricted rpm range typical of O-360s.

Mike V

Nothing like a Huskie to get us SC Driver into a frenzy !