Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 68

Thread: Super Cub versus Husky

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    34
    Post Thanks / Like

    Super Cub versus Husky

    I new to the web site and previously owned a Scout. I want to replace it with a S.C. or a Husky. I am looking for opinions/facts on what would be better for back country flying and any issues with either aircraft. If a Cub is a 180 better than a 160 or is the weight trade off not worth the H.P. Speed is not an issue but a slow landing speed and stable flight are.

    Thanxs Eric

  2. #2
    Lance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Gonzales, Louisiana
    Posts
    677
    Post Thanks / Like
    Diggler, Is that you?

  3. #3
    55-PA18A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dillingham, Alaska
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh Boy !!!!,...this ought to be fun!!!

    Jim

  4. #4
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    5,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Eric

    Welcome to the site. As you may discover by digging around on this site it is really really active. The question you have asked has been the subject of tons of discussion, debate, name calling, mud slinging, theorizing, haggling, haranguing, etc etc. The debate got so heated at one point I think some folks left the site in disgust. Thus the posts above in response to your question.

    Here are just a couple of threads that answer your question....


    http://www.supercub.org/phpbb2/viewt...huskey+landing

    http://www.supercub.org/phpbb2/viewt...ighlight=husky

    http://www.supercub.org/phpbb2/viewt...ighlight=husky

    On the front home page of this site you can click on the box " Discussion Forums" and at the top of that page you will see the word "search". If you click on the search word you can type in a word or words (using "and" between them) and you can find almost anything. Type in Husky and you will get 670 threads that have the word Husky in there somewhere.

    Again, welcome to the best aviation web site there is.

    Bill

  5. #5
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,411
    Post Thanks / Like
    ESKI, if slow landing speed and stable slow flight are the most important qualities to you, a J-3, PA-11, or 18-95 would be a better choice than either a Husky or an 18-150 (150, 160, or 180 HP).

    Light wing loading equals slow landing speed. J-3's and PA-11's can be had under 800 pounds empty. They have the same wing area as an 18-150, but the 18-150 will weigh over 1100 pounds empty, on average. That extra 300 pounds makes a HUUUGGE difference on landing speed and slow-flight qualities.

    DAVE

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fairbanks Alaska
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like
    Huskies Are not Cubs, Cubs are not Huskies! Maule's suck!
    There, that should just about do it! Cessna's rock!
    Tim

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    212
    Post Thanks / Like
    What's a Cessna?
    60below

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fairbanks Alaska
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's one of them planes that has some resale value after it wrecks you can make beer cans out of'em!
    Tim

  9. #9
    AntiCub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 60below
    What's a Cessna?
    You know, those cute little planes with metal all over and a training wheel in front.

    :P

    Phil

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    364
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mit greb
    Huskies Are not Cubs, Cubs are not Huskies! Maule's suck!
    There, that should just about do it! Cessna's rock!
    Made my day! Ditto
    Now its time to follow suite .

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Rusk
    welcome to the best aviation web site there is.
    Ditto this as well!
    Catch the fish, to make the money, to buy the bread, to gather the strength, to catch the fish...

  11. #11
    acroeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Burlington, NC
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Best thing about a Husky is that you can sell it and make a down payment on a 185.

    Oops- did I just say that?

    If the Super Cub wasn't the king, everyone would not be trying to achieve it's abilities. How may times have you heard "it gets off almost like a Super Cub" or "Super Cub like performance"

    As for re-sale, anything other than a Super Cub will most always depreciate, while the good ole' PA-18 maintains it's value or appreciates.

    Get a light PA-18-150 and have fun. Just my 2 cents.

  12. #12
    Taledrger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just get a lite 150/160 PA-18 and add all the AK mods. Then you won't have to listen to a bunch of BS about what a piece of crap your airplane is from people that have never owned one.

    Seriously, check the links above and do the search, you will find lots of rhetoric. If you want an unbiased opinion from someone that has owned and loved both airplanes you can contact me directly.
    Bob D

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    34
    Post Thanks / Like

    oops sorry I know its apples to oranges

    I agree that the S.C. is king however I have some worries about high airframe times. Even a great rebuild does not zero out airframe. I appreciate all the threads and info. Please excuse my ignorance. Second question can all S.C. be converted to toe brakes is it worth the effort. Has anybody tried the Mackey Slat Kit.

    I appreciate the advice
    Eski

  14. #14
    Taledrger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    977
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: oops sorry I know its apples to oranges

    Quote Originally Posted by eski
    Second question can all S.C. be converted to toe brakes is it worth the effort.
    Boy you know how to get these guys cranked up

    Simple answer... DON"T DO IT !!! Heels are easy to get used to and superior!
    Bob D

  15. #15
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,814
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: oops sorry I know its apples to oranges

    Quote Originally Posted by eski
    I agree that the S.C. is king however I have some worries about high airframe times. Even a great rebuild does not zero out airframe. I appreciate all the threads and info. Please excuse my ignorance. Second question can all S.C. be converted to toe brakes is it worth the effort. Has anybody tried the Mackey Slat Kit.

    I appreciate the advice
    Eski
    Eski..... Whats your real name?


    This is a great place for info. A great way to get it is the search function. Type in "toe brakes" with the "include all words check and you will get some great info.

    Airframe times are about useless on cubs...you can wear one out in 2000 hours if you never maintain it. Or you can have one with 20,000 hours on it with all new parts. If you have some bucks you should go see David Foster in Tx. , he has a nice widebody for sale.

    Decent prices on Supercubs are hard to find these days. Good luck.

    Tim

  16. #16
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,411
    Post Thanks / Like
    ESKI, I second what Tim said, worry about high airframe times if you don't have an experienced Cub guy to tell you how clapped-out the frame is. A knowledgeable Cub mechanic can tell how beat up the airplane is.

    As far as toe brakes or not, any Cub pilot will tell you that toe or heel brakes do not make or break the usefulness of these a/c. A pilot who cannot handle heel brakes is likely to have very little heel brake time, and may also have poorly-rigged rudder pedals and heel brake pedals. Heel brakes are great for feel, pressure modulation, and the ability to rudder and brake at the same time-or not at the same time, with good precision. This may not be necessary for everyone, but it keeps me from hitting rocks, logs, holes, falling off ledges, etc., when landing on unimproved areas and braking aggressively. My opinion is worth what you paid for it, so remember that, any of you heel brake haters

    Wayne Mackey slats, yes. They work. I installed them in conjunction with a bunch of other aerodynamic mods which also work. I can say for sure that the slats alone make that wing fly and keep it flying. They are forcing air to stay on top of the wing and it is as if the wing will not stall. AMAzing. Any Cub guy can appreciate what these things do. This a/c will fly so slow that it will do turns around a point in about a 100 foot radius with out a problem and solid as can be. It is a safety and fun-to-fly improvement that everyone should check out. I had questioned, before flying them, whether I would use them on my next airplane or not. Now there is no question that my next Cub WILL have them. DAVE

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Vale Oregon
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like
    What you really need is a good Super Cub heck I'll sell ya mine (hint, hint.)

  18. #18
    High Country's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like
    I love how there has been a million posts on this subject, but every time it comes up it is one of the most popular threads. When the site gets slow you can always count on the old standby; Super Cub vs. Husky.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,211
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah. But we need to put that toe brake thing to bed. Is there anybody who has a hundred or more Cub hours with heel brakes who would rather have toe brakes? Anybody?

  20. #20
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob,

    Yep, me--I hate heel brakes, and I've got several thousand hours behind them. They work, but, as Dave noted, it is REAL easy to have some dipstick rig them or the rudder pedals all wrong, the result being something that is virtually unworkable, variable to just plain uncomfortable.

    Part or perhaps all of the problem---I was blessed with size 8 feet--my feet look sorta like small snowshoes--short and wide (EEE). As a consequence, when the **** really hits the fan, and I've got full rudder deflection in to fix something, I have to take my foot OFF the rudder pedal and pull it back to catch the brake pedal. Give that a try when a student gets the thing going toward the lights sometime, and let me know how it works for you.

    At least for guys with short feet, heel brakes may not be the best deal. Note that virtually ALL modern aircraft use toe brakes. That could be a clue as to preferences.

    Oh, and Huskys--I've flown them about as much as Cubs. Check the archives for my opinions. Short version: They are both great airplanes. Your mileage will depend largely on what your specific mission is.

    Go ahead guys--hose away...
    \
    MTV

  21. #21

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Lafayette La
    Posts
    311
    Post Thanks / Like
    Flew a Husky 2007 A1B today. Winds were 18, gusting to 25. It was a very stable, solid platform. Having said that, I need to mention that you don't do ANYTHING without having your left hand on the trim wheel. Having owned a A!A model, I'd forgotten how heavy the controls are and how trim dependent you are. It's not that the trim helps a maneuver, it's just almost impossible to maneuver without leading with the trim wheel. In a cub, being out of trim is a "fix it when I get time" situation. In a Husky, you almost need a 3rd Hand on a go-around. The salesman let me go down to my place where we had a direct crosswind. I have to say The Husky handled it very well, the solid feel really helped. I'm going to try to get a demo flight in a CC Top Cub to compare, the 150 cub I used to have would have handled today's conditions as well but with more of a one on one feel instead of steering a heavy weight around. I've been told that a Top Cub is a little more solid that a stock PA-18. A stock PA-18 is a delight on the low end. Bill

  22. #22
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Since I'm a mechanic, and an airplane lover, period, I treat each bird that I fly the way it likes to be treated, and I trim them and set them up to do all that I am able to make them do.

    Anyway, that means that as a mechanic, if I have poorly rigged heel brakes, I fix 'em. My size 8.5 feet do fine with 'em. If I weren't a mechanic, I guess I'd have to side with MTV on this or squawk the airplane and educate the maintenance techs.

    I personally do not like that on toe brakes I must remove my heel from the floor (which is a great reference point for neutral when modulating heel brakes) and thus, I find that my feel, pressure modulation, and thus, precision suffer with toe brakes. Yes, I've flown Cubs with heel brakes and Cubs with toe brakes. I suppose MTV could be the only toe brake holdout when every other Cub guy would rather have heel brakes.

    As far as Huskies go, I agree with Bill that flying a Husky well demands attention to the trim wheel. When flaring for landing, (a time when a guy needs good pitch feel) that spring is fooling you about how much nose up pitch you can get. Yes, it can be learned and the Husky is a fine airplane when flown at gross weights versus a Cub, but very slow it ain't the same........still haven't been in the latest version of Husky with the longer flap/shorter aileron, which is reported to be impressive. Maybe George Mandes will chime in here.

    PS MikeV, I swear that I don't go around thinking of ways to opine in opposition of you, but golly does it seem that we are often at opposite ends of the spectrum, and I respect you very much, so it amazes me that you and I would come to opposite conclusions so often. DAVE

  23. #23
    Taledrger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    977
    Post Thanks / Like
    I really like the toe brakes on my Husky but I would not convert a Cub. I have size 9 feet and with 3/4 in blocks and the right set up, I loved my L21B Cub.
    The Husky trim will always be it's single worst design flaw. IMHO
    Bob D

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    325
    Post Thanks / Like
    I fly floats and skis and have never had toe brake problems.


    Hey i did not know so many people have problems with toe brakes!! I have size 11.5 shoes. I usually wear red wings. I am also over 6ft. I have just a ton of trouble getting full rudder without any brake. If i run my seat really low and slid back then it helps the geometry, but if my seat is located really high and forward then by the time i get to the full rudder range i have to get my foot tilted way back to stay off the brakes. I like to have my seat forward and high so i can see over the nose. BTW this is on a 170. I do like the heal brakes when flying cubs!

  25. #25
    Bill Rusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    5,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Eski

    Regarding toe brakes. One of the most significant disadvantages is in the feel. Heal brakes are not connected to the rudder pedal so when you are on the rudders you have a near perfect, unhindered, connection to the flight control surface.
    The brake mechanism is connected to the rudder pedal with toe brakes so every time you push the rudder you are also moving the brake mechanism, brake lines, master cylinder connections and everything else. No matter how it is designed or maintained you are moving a bunch of hardware when you use the rudder which impedes your "feel" of the rudder and the airplane.
    Just another consideration.

    Bill

  26. #26
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dave,

    First, I should have noted that I've never flown a Cub with toe brakes, so I was speaking of brake systems in general terms, not specific to one airplane or another.

    Dave, I concur with your "mechanic" argument. Not everyone has that ability, though. I worked for an outfit that owned a fleet of aircraft, that were maintained by a number of maintainers and facilities. Management held varying opinions on what was "airworthy". Frankly, I never had a problem caused by heel brakes on those aircraft.

    As one of my first instructors told me in response to the stock brakes on my PA-12: "You supposed to FLY the damn thing, not STOP it!!!!" He was VERY German, and a little emotional. I still installed hydraulic brakes later. My next airplane was a 90 hp J-3, which in winter wore Goodyear AIrwheels, and possessed stock mechanical brakes. Which is to say that, for the most part, the heel brakes were simply a place to rest your heels . If you pressed REALLY hard on them, you could sorta tell there was something going on. I spent a lot of time on beaches with that airplane, and never saw much problem with the brakes. I didn't particularly care for them, but they were pretty irrelevant, in any case.

    But, again, try sitting in the back of an airplane with heel brakes in a training environment. You're following the student's control movements, and you have to wait patiently for the student to recognize and try to fix something BEFORE you intercede. In that case, reaching for that heel brake can be a pretty interesting program at the very last moment. And, it's not intuitive for the student, who trained in airplanes with toe brakes.

    My worst heel brake story: A student and I were flying a Cub, he started some pretty enthusiastic swerving, but was catching them in time, and getting on top of it. Unfortunately, he was wearing slip on shoes, and during one enthusiastic rudder deflection, his foot slid partially out of his shoe, and the back of the shoe caught between the heel brake and the rudder pedal--ie: near full rudder deflection. I stood on the brakes, then tried to figure out what the hey happened.

    In general flying, I simply don't care for heel brakes. For instructing, I simply hate them.

    As to feel, as Bill describes, sorry, but I've flown so many years wearing hip boots, bunny boots, etc, that "feeling" the rudder inputs this precisely just isnt' in my play book. So, what---You fly around barefoot, Bill ??

    I just don't care for heel brakes, for the reasons noted,, but to each his own. I don't find that precise braking is an issue with toe brakes, it's simply a matter of getting the feel for the system. As to the argument about keeping your heels on the floor, that's basically what I do with toe brake systems. If I need brake, I rotate my ankle and there's some brake.

    One down side to toe brakes: Again, in a training environment, a dear old friend of mine who was a great instructor had a "student" get a 180 upside down with him instructing. My friends' words of wisdom afterwards: "There is simply nothing an instructor can do if a student puts those big size 14 boots on the tops of those pedals and pushes hard during a landing." THAT is now a briefing item every time I fly with someone, regardless of what type brakes you have.

    Hey, this is all personal preference. I wouldn't CONVERT anything with heel brakes to toe brakes, or vice versa. I also wouldn't purchase or refuse to purchase an airplane because it had one or the other.

    And, in my world, I often don't get to make the choice.

    Run what ya brung, folks.

    MTV

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Super Cub VS Husky

    I built my cub with Scout toe brakes for the front seat only. I love them and would do it again if I was to build another cub. The only think I don't like is that the pedals needed to be move back one inch so there would be enough petal deflection for the brakes with full rudder input. I would relieve the firewall for this problem if I were do do it over. I have a little time in cubs with heel brakes and toe brakes.
    Sandy
    Sandy

  28. #28

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Lafayette La
    Posts
    311
    Post Thanks / Like
    MTV, down here, we put our shoes on AFTER we land. You mean someone actually flies a Cub with shoes on? Bill

  29. #29
    flagold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    429
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have no dog in this fight.

  30. #30
    kase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,572
    Post Thanks / Like
    I had the chance to buy this Husky last year for 60k. 1989, 650 TTSN NDH. I didn't for a couple reasons. 1. Fuel prices were starting to go crazy and didn't want to get stuck with it. 2. Was out of annual and sat for 2 years. There's a AD on the prop hub and didn't want to get hit with that. 3. Since its a A1 it has a low GW and cost to much to do any upgrades to it. 4. Insurance was alot higher than my cub.



  31. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Clearwater,Fl
    Posts
    2,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Still would of been a lot of airplane for the money, that is if you needed an airplane.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    7,211
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like toe brakes. They work just fine in my Super Decathlon, and in just about every other aircraft I have ever flown. I have only flown heel brakes in Cubs, Aeroncas, and Tcarts. I prefer heel brakes in all of those, but we just converted an Aeronca to toe brakes, and they are superb.

    I would rather teach beginning taildragging in a Cub with heel brakes. I doubt that I would entertain such instruction in a stock "Tango" Cub; the synergy is simply not there. Maybe Scout brakes would work.

    I do not remember trim being an issue in the Husky I instructed in - of course my students did most of the flying. I move the trim in my J-3 about once every time I add or subtract a passenger - or maybe when actually going somewhere, so I can hang on to something other than the stick. Some Super Cubs require trim as described above, others simply do not. We have one on the airport that cannot be flown in the pattern without massive trim changes, and another that needs never to be touched from takeoff to full flap landing. If I knew why, I would fix the trim hog.

    For me, the big deal with the Husky (apart from getting in and out of the back seat) is the need to nail 55 on the approach. You can bring a Cub in at a hundred, then slow down, flare, and stop. You absolutely must be on speed in the Husky, or it will fly down to the other end of the airport. And no- I haven't flown the new one with enhanced flaps - that probably helped some.

    As always, opinion. And yeah, I fly barefoot a good bit of the time.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Weatherford, Texas
    Posts
    115
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have a new wing Husky with MT Prop. I had the old wing Husky prior. I was accustomed to maintaining speeds appropriate for the landing with 55 being rather typical. The new plane is more forgiving, but I am not certain if it is the wing, flaps etc or the prop. The MT prop has so little rotating mass that it slows down like "Right Now" when you pull the power, in addition it is very flat in pitch with no power. So, long and short of it, about 55 short final, slow up a bit more by pulling the nose up, tail wheel low wheel landing and apply brakes. The Husky has an advantage in ability to apply more brakes because the tail is heavier and will stay down with more braking force. I flew with Loni in Alaska last month in his Cub. He demonstrated this technique of which I was somewhat familiar already. With me in the back seat he was able to apply quite a bit of brake force. He pointed out that his Cub is tailored specifically for such actions. Very light nose weight, 35" ABW, 3" extended gear and survival equipment always in the aft baggage area, tied down. I have flown both and as MTV says, depends on what you want to do as to what plane is best. Loni's Cub is superb for off field, short and rough work. It is not fast, it doesn't have a starter. If you are the typical lower 48 guy that bonks around with an occasional dirt strip, pasture or grass strip landing and it is a long ways from Home to the playground, well the Husky is a great plane. If you live in or frequent the great land aka Alaska, then a purpose built Super Cub is pretty hard to beat.

    Pretty soon my Husky will look like a Cub with a Husky wing, we are about to add the AOSS system with PA-18 3" Extended Heavy Duty Gear! BTW, the trim doesn't bother me at all, most airplanes require trim adjustments unless you have Hercules Arms, some more than others. I don't find it the least bit distracting. For a given load, when conducting T&G's, I adjust the trim for 55 MPH all the way around the pattern, only changing the power to change altitude, adjust once and forget it for that session. Try it, Loni prescribed that too.

  34. #34
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with Gary on the trim. The most frequent complaint of Cub drivers after their first Husky flight is how much they hate the heavy pitch forces and having to trim all the time.

    Everyone I've ever known who's flown the Husky for a while adapts to the pitch forces, and learns to fly the airplane on trim.

    Frankly, you should fly EVERY airplane on trim most of the time. It's pretty much good practice, though it won't kill you not to do so.

    MTV

  35. #35
    Taledrger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    977
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion
    I agree with Gary on the trim.
    I don't ... All do respect to you experts..With about 300 hrs now in A1 I still don't like the bungee system when I'm trying to work the airplane in slow and short. Other than that condition it's as good as anything else. I don't like a system I have to trim between 50 and 35 to get ANY proper elevator feel.
    Not saying you can't adapt just wish it had jack screw or tab.
    Bob D

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,859
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion
    As one of my first instructors told me in response to the stock brakes on my PA-12: "You supposed to FLY the damn thing, not STOP it!!!!" He was VERY German, and a little emotional. I still installed hydraulic brakes later. My next airplane was a 90 hp J-3, which in winter wore Goodyear AIrwheels, and possessed stock mechanical brakes. Which is to say that, for the most part, the heel brakes were simply a place to rest your heels . If you pressed REALLY hard on them, you could sorta tell there was something going on. I spent a lot of time on beaches with that airplane, and never saw much problem with the brakes. I didn't particularly care for them, but they were pretty irrelevant, in any case.
    MTV
    Uuhhhhh, Mike,

    I believe every PA-12 and every J3 produced had hydraulic brakes. All PA-12's and J3's produced after 1943 had brakes identical to every PA-18 off the line (except the Tango Cubs) until piper went to the 6 inch wheel. They were "drum" brakes not disk brakes but they all had the same Scott master cylinders.

    John Scott

  37. #37
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    11,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob,

    My J-3 was a 1939 version. I honestly can't tell you exactly what brakes were on it, but they were virtually useless, at least with the Airwheels. This was over 30 years ago, so my memory has faded a bit, but I thought they were mechanical brakes.

    The PA-12 had the original brakes, which, as you say were hydraulic, but also almost totally ineffective. They were replaced with a more modern after market system, which was much more effective.

    And, I've never met a STOCK Super Cub that had very good brakes. Why is it that there are so many after market brake systems around for Cubs??

    My point, however, was simply that those original brakes had very little effectiveness, yet the airplanes worked fine. I know a lot of guys who worked those airplanes for years with those original brakes. They maybe never liked them, and much prefer the newer, more effective systems, but they got by fine. Better brakes are certainly not a bad thing, but.....

    MTV

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    S98
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like
    Totally depends upon your real use of the airplane. It's already been stated, that if you're really interested in going into and out of the very short strips and that's important, then a light Super Cub is going to be hard to beat.

    I've had one Super Cub and two Huskys. I currently fly a A1-B model Husky and like it better for "MY" use. I like the "off-road" abilities of the Husky and the travel abilities of the Husky. I can land just about anywhere I want, AND then fly home faster. I don't even notice the trim now. I've logged 1,000 plus hours in Huskys and it's a non-issue. I can't even tell you really how I do it as it's become second nature. I trim a couple of times in the pattern and generally put the trim at the absolute far aft position on short final. It helps me with the flare and keeps my landings relatively short.

    You can't go wrong with either one in my opinion. Frankly, any airplane that you can fly is a "good" one.

    Good luck with your decision.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    646
    Post Thanks / Like
    Super Cub VS Husky...

    A couple of points...

    1) I can't seem to find the take-off or landing numbers of the huskies at the Valdez Fly-In for the STOL comp...oh ya...I guess they didn't compete...MMM?

    2) Here in the Copper Valley(Alaska), the National Park Service( Wrangles ) has a Husky, 180 hp, all the recent mods, PA 18 gear, etc...One of the Pilots is a good friend of mine...and we talk about a lot of back country strips. Many of those he will not take the husky into them...for both fear of getting stopped as well as getting out...This Pilot is a VERY good pilot, a CFI and would comfortably go into those strips with my 150 super cub.

    3) Toe brakes/Heel brakes...to each is their own...use what you like...like what you use...I am building a EXP PA 14 and am considering heel brakes on the left, toe brakes on the right. ( Toe brakes might be easier for my young daughters while learning when young...small feet>>>)

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Homer, Alaska
    Posts
    562
    Post Thanks / Like
    1) You can't compare an old wing to a new wing Husky, as the approach speed is about 45 in good air and light, compared to 55 in the old wing.

    2) The big flaps on the new wing allow you to fly fast and still transition to a slow landing speed. Between the MT, Burl gear, Bushwheels, and new flaps, we can easily descend 1,000 fpm at 50 with power on.

    3) The ailerons on the new wing are amazing in turbulence, as you have incredible roll control. The ailerons also make the new wing Husky a great float plane. The Husky and turbo Beaver are the only planes that I have flown that are as good on floats as wheels.

    4) Our tricked out Cub, now owned by Pat F, weighed 1,122 pounds. Our best effort for a similarly equipped Husky on 31's with Burl gear is 1,312 pounds. We are working with the factory now, but the results will be at most 60 pounds and not 200 pounds. I don't see how a Husky can ever land as short as a stripped down Cub, but the new wing has reduced landing distance for us from 325 to 200 feet under similar conditions.

Similar Threads

  1. super cub rebuild versus cubcrafters top cub
    By jsigmon24 in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 03:02 PM
  2. Super Cub versus J2 Cub flight test comparison
    By BritishCubBloke in forum The Art and Science of Flying
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-09-2003, 01:24 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •