Husky??

Bob, in my opinion the ailerons on the new wing Husky are easily better than a round-tip wing -18, even if the Cub has VG's.

I am surprised to hear your opinion differ from mine, and also that Christina thought the new Husky ailerons inadequate for crosswind.

Any of you Cub guys out there oughtta go fly one before you listen to all this blog-talk about the Husky.

Also, the airplane is flown much more effectively when pulled up behind the power curve with full flaps. I believe a very-realistic improvement for the Husky (new wing or old) would be to increase the flap deflection.

I agree that a weight loss program is unlikely to come about. D

David,
I have 8 hours in the Husky, but in the A1A. My experience in the A1C is in the back seat last week as a passenger observing some landings.

Let's talk about the stall speed. It sucks!

That's right,
sucks
sucks
sucks!

Crash can add to that if he wants to.

How many hours do you have in the new model Husky, David???

Dave,

You are right!

As Justin said, we will graciously donate our time to really fly a new husky and report back.

When should I come pick it up?

Steve, the point of the original Husky gear was to keep it streamlined... What I see in the pic is a product of wanting to compromise two compromises

Christina, some missions are not all about short strips.

And my last questions: did they get the interior figured out so the flap handle does not push on your leg, or the carb heat where you do not skin your knuckle when you pull it on

The early ones were awful! And yes, the Ailerons on the early ones were poor.

aktango58 said:

Christina, some missions are not all about short strips.

Click to expand...

Never said they were.... that's why I mentioned the Learjet... :-?

About an hour in the front seat of the new bird.

Way more than that in the -1B.

The new wing is better.

The ailerons are great, I can't believe any one is in doubt of that.

Okay, the stall speed of the new bird with you in the back seat doesn't feel like your Cub. Get in front.

As I said before, getting behind the power curve is the way to fly the Husky slow (A-1, A, B, or C). The book numbers cannot be followed and expect to yield bush-worthy performance.....and VG's make a difference on them (some dealers apparently don't fly them close enough to the edge to be aware of this).

When flown like a good light C-180 (behind the power curve), the thing isn't too far from a Cub.

Load your Cub to over gross and that Husky overgross, and see who wimpers, take off AND landing, performance-wise.

...and stop yelling at me. Thanks!!!

Husky

Haven't flown the Husky. From reading this, it sounds like a comparison between a 180 and 185!

A light Husky, flown light is obviously a completely different aircraft than a 2,200 pound Husky. I would suggest that flying around in the back seat of a heavy Husky is not seeing the machine at its best.

Crash, as I recall, I made the offer some time ago, to meet you and fly our light Husky side by side with your machine, so in a low key way, we could compare the performance in takeoff, landing and cruise. Not sure what the results would be, but it would be interesting to see. That offer still stands.

As to stall speed, POH numbers for power off stalls at 2,200 pounds are obviously quite a bit higher than partial power stalls at a light weight. We approach at 45 mph light in good air. That said, empty weight is empty weight, and a 1,300 pound Husky is never going to stall or approach as slow as a 1,050 pound Cub.

I have two friends about to leave for a trip in a Cub and Husky up to the north slope and around Alaska. Both are carrying extra fuel, but the Husky is carrying the extra fuel for the Cub.

The real reason not to own a husky is parts. If Aviat can't survive the economy, parts for the husky will be astronomically worse in regards to both access and price.

aktango58, I am not certain that I understand what you meant, "What I see in the pic is a product of wanting to compromise two compromises"

I had the AOSS added because I flew with Lonnie in his Super Cub and was impressed with it. I didn't like bungees and banging gear when I landed in a little bit of rough terrain. I have flown only two Super Cubs, they were entirely different. The first one handled like an old worn out Buick Electra. The second one was Steve's, our host of this great site. Steve was kind enough to allow me a few minutes at the stick when he was in Graham. Steve's plane handles much like all of the descriptions on this website, maybe even better. But then again, it doesn't begin to resemble a stock PA-18. I am yet to fly a stock PA-18, maybe someday.

I might take you up on letting you have a Husky for a while. I want to base the plane in Alaska for the summer next summer. I need to have someone look after it while I am not there. Might you be interested? I could leave you the keys, just not gas money! Where are you located? I have spent most of my time around Bristol Bay, North and West Alaska, a little time close to Lake Clark. Maybe time to see some new part of the greatest state.

Gary

I live in Juneau, at least until the wife unit will retire, (or become rich so I can retire).

I have a hanger the husky will fit into all summer while my bird is on floats.

I understand the not liking original husky gear bungee systems, especially if you fly floats in summer. but the idea of getting a plane that has speed and ok short field, then adding AOSS drag just grinds me! I would suspect that SJ's cub with that prop will keep up with the husky, or close, and still be a better short field.

I have always thought the husky was great for folks that had 600' of strip and traveled more than about 90 miles often. The husky shines on that type mission.

The AOSS with extended Cub gear is a wonderful mod on the Husky. Sure, it slows you down over the stock gear, but I have yet to see a fixed pitch Cub that could hang with an AOSS Husky. You get more angle of attack with the AOSS/extended gear, and the regular AOSS benefit of reducing bouncing on rough terrain.

A new wing Husky can work a significantly shorter area than an old wing Husky. Apples to apples landing distance goes from 325 feet to 200 feet with the new wing, because you can approach slower with the new wing.

While a light Cub is a delight on a nice day, close to home, there is just no comparison to a new wing Husky on a bad day or going a distance. Tomorrow, we have a real winter like low influencing Bristol Bay and the Kenai Peninsula, with Homer's winds aloft forecast at 3,000 feet to be 71 knots out of the east. I flew out to Lake Clark and back today in the helicopter, ahead of the storm, and just landed home in Homer at 10:30 pm. Coming through Lake Clark Pass at 500 feet msl, trying to stay out of the 25 knot headwind even at 500 feet, there was some poor guy in a Cub at about 700 feet literally getting the stuffing knocked out of him. I was about 40 knots faster than the Cub, and at first I thought he was circling in the pass. Turns out, it was his wings flailing back and forth. Life is too short to be flying through a long pass at 50 or 60 mph over the ground, using rudder to right the plane because the ailerons are so poor on a Cub.

As to Aviat's survival, I am amazed that Aviat continues to sell planes at a brisk clip -- even through this horrendous time. I suspect they will be around to provide parts for a long time, and in any event with the size of the fleet, if something happened to the company, no doubt others would emerge to provide parts.

aktango58 said:

I would suspect that SJ's cub with that prop will keep up with the husky, or close, and still be a better short field.

Click to expand...

Not with 35" tires it won't The smallest tires I have ever had on it are 31" and it still would not keep up with my friends A1B by quite a margin. He has 26" goodyears. Once I get the plane back, I am going to put on some little tires and see what it will do just to satisfy my own curiosity (and that of others). I still don't think it will be as fast.

I like all kinds of airplanes and I enjoy flying different planes. My personal observations about the "old wing" 180hp Husky I have mostly flown is that it is a quite capable airplane, but requires a more capable - or maybe I should say practiced - pilot to get close to the kind of landing and takeoff performance you can get out of a cub by just slapping it around. The angles for approach and takeoff are different and take some mental adjustments. The tail is quite a bit heavier than most cubs, and that requires a strategy change for short field takeoffs. I don't find the cockpit as comfortable as the cub, partially because I am tall in the torso and bang my head on things. I also find them to be very noisy inside. I have not flown one with at MT prop, this may help the noise and vibration. It otherwise seems to me to be a well built, easy to fly, airplane. If you never get more than 50 miles from home, you probably would be happier in a cub.

I'd like to fly one of the new wing, hopped up Huskies and hopefully somebody will let me do that soon!

sj

Steve--What do you see for an indicated airspeed in normal cruise flight? At what mp & rpm?

My ASI is goofed up, but with the 35" tires I get close to 100mph at lower levels. I was doing almost 10mph better on the 31's.

sj

What power setting?

On sorry, 24 squared, burn about 8.8

Steve,
The next time I see you and am in the Husky it is yours to play with. I don't know if my 200 HP is any faster than a 180 HP, but it seems to be quicker off of the ground. As some of you know, Steve Pierce put the AOSS on my Husky.

I originally bought the Husky for a couple of reasons over the PA-18. I wanted a new airplane, I was tired of dealing with issues on the older planes that I owned. I also live in Texas, it is a long way to anywhere fun to play with a plane of this type. Speed and range were originally a consideration. After I got the Husky I started finding fun places that weren't too far away, but they were too rough for my taste with the factory gear. I first added the 31" and SGS kit, this helped but was still not what I was looking for. And then I was at Nick Pierskalla's place on the Mulchatna, this is where Lonnie works, and Lonnie took me for a spin in his Super Cub with AOSS. Lonnie was very convincing that I needed to add this to my Husky. If I had it to do all over again, I might go a different way, not for sure. The major detriment for my use of the Husky is the empty weight. I would like it to be at least 100 pounds lighter if not more.

Interesting discussion. I'd pretty much second everything Dave and George have noted about the Husky.

Christina: Here's something to consider--you are sort of correct regarding the published stall speeds of the airplanes, except that you're comparing apples to oranges.

For example, the model A-1 Husky stall speed was published at 43 mph, maximum gross weight (1800 lbs) and power off. The Super Cub, with a max gross weight of 1750 lbs has a published power off stall speed of either 42 or 43 mph, depending on what year you're looking at. That is apples to apples. And, by the way, the A-1 Husky POH also advertises the Gross weight power ON stall speed as 37 mph.

Now, the model A-1B Husky stall speed (power off and at 2000 pounds) is listed as 53 mph.

Let's compare apples to apples, then: the Wipaire converted PA-18 published stall speed at max gross weight (2000 lbs) is given as either 52 or 53 mph, though I don't have a supplement here at the moment.

The CC-18-180 Cub Crafters Top Cub stall speed, at 2300 pounds, is listed as 44 mph. That airplane is equipped with BLR VG kit, from the factory, though. It is a 180 hp, and empty weight of ours is 1307.

In my experience, the Huskys pretty much stall at or below the speeds Aviat gives for them.

As to ailerons, EVERY Husky has more effective ailerons than any STOCK Cub I've ever flown, that is a Cub with stock ailerons and wing length. IF you want really BAD ailerons, fly a Super Cub with extended wings sometime where they didn't extend and move the ailerons. I flew one of those for nearly two thousand hours, and pretty much gave up on ailerons in that cub. But, again, that doesn't represent the great mods that have been done to many Cubs either.

The single biggest issue the Husky has is empty weight. That said, look at an uncovered Husky sometime, and you'll see where the weight comes from--structure. I've seen one that was screwed into the ground, killing the pilot, who wound up with the engine in his lap, but the rear seater didn't get hurt except a concussion from the deceleration.

For many years, I flew Huskys and Cubs, often on the same undercarriages, same model skis, same tires, same floats. I generally found the Huskys to be 20 mph faster than a Cub, while buring 1+ gph LESS gas. These Cubs were all 160 hp cubs with Borer props.

If you have to go out a ways, or stay airborne a long time, the Husky really shines.

I never found the Husky wanting for STOL capability, and in fact, on floats, where performance on takeoff is really noticeable, there were a lot of places I took the Husky that I simply wouldn't take a Cub. At least not a 160 CUb.

MTV

And ummm, steve,what rpm/mp did you have to dial BACK to to keep me within "Civilian Formation" (same direction same day) when you so gratiously shepherded me out of the KMKC busy airspace? I kinda think cubscout's L-21B with 3" uncovered gear, 26" sissy Goodyears, and VG's runs ~ 77knots or whatever units you all like, 2400 rpm with a Sensenich 74-52 and a lousy pilot :roll:

And or course, watching the semis passing on I-80 whilst en-route to Johnson Crick was a real teat last month

Thanks. cubscout

mvivion said:

IF you want really BAD ailerons, fly a Super Cub with extended wings sometime where they didn't extend and move the ailerons.

Click to expand...

Damn! Thanks Mike That's exactly what I have, learned in, and all I've flown.
Was talking to a guy (Aero. Engineer) @ the fly in this weekend 'bout that, and pretty much made up my mind to do that this winter (when I redo the wings). He also said it makes a noticeable difference to move the flaps right to the windows & move the wing root fairings fwd.

What I understand is to move my EXISTING flaps inboard, and extend the ailerons all the way from them to the tips, izzat right? I'll look up all the existing threads 'bout a month before I start!

Logan,

Hey, that's the configuration of the first SC I flew, for eight years, and for much of that didn't know any better. Eventually (and not my choice) they rebuilt the wings during recover, and converted back to stock wings. Big difference.

There are several ways to modify the aileron/flap assy, and many on here can give you the "hot setup", but the main idea is to increase size of aileron, and extend it out to the tip or close to it.

I really don't understand this, cause several other Piper A/C, such as the Cherokee Six, have ailerons that end well inboard of the tips, and have okay (not great, but okay) aileron authority.

But, bottom line is, extended wings with stock ailerons, flown in the mountains WILL teach you what the rudder is for.... :lol:

The "new wing" Husky has a redesigned, deeper chord aileron, which is aerodynamically (as opposed to mass) balanced, and has no "aerodynamic counterbalances".

MTV

mvivion said:

Hey, that's the configuration of the first SC I flew, for eight years, and for much of that didn't know any better.

Click to expand...

That's because you didn't have the SCub.org guiding light.
I'm a lucky noob to have all this adult supervision!!

I am a Cub guy. I looked at a Husky when I was shopping and I was impressed. Listening to some of the people on this site I thought the Husky would take forever to get off the ground and not be able to land on anything less than 600’. It was just the opposite, it’s a good airplane. It won’t quite do what a Cub will do if you are working real short and I do mean short (100’-300’) but beyond that it will. It will also do things that a Cub won’t.

This debate will always rage on, but in my opinion the Husky is a great airplane with just a different personality than a Cub. Don’t take anyone elses word for it. Fly one for yourself and learn to fly it correctly before you make any snap decisions.

Shane

Question for MTV and other Husky Drivers

Mike, Why do you think so many Husky's have stalled/spun killing or seriously injuring in the ADC program. I know plenty of cubs have fallen out of a turn also but for the number of Husky's flying it seems to be a problem. I think the Border Patrol also lost several also.
Just asking not pointing any fingers. I would love to fly the new wing sometime, it has to be a big improvement.

Dave

I have owned and flown both the original wing and new wing Husky's. No comparison, the new wing is a different airplane, much better for my taste.

Dave,

I don't mean to steal Mike's opportunity here but I will give you what I found out with some research.

I have never measured it, but just looking at the wing on the Husky it appears to have quite a bit more dihedral than a Cub. I feel this creates a "stronger" wing tip vortice on the Husky. Much like comparing a C-188 vortice to a C-180/185 vortice, the 188 has a heck of wing tip vortice compared to the 180/185 on an almost identical wing. Most of these accidents were circling a "target" and likely encountered a high angle of attack, dirty configuration wing tip vortice and stalled the nontrimmable horizontal stabilizer.

According to a couple of the reports the aircraft were being flown "very aggressively." I am not sure what to make of that statement, other than maybe they were doing something they weren't suppose to.

I have read that a gap seal on the horizontal stabilizer helps in this tail stall phenomenon, I have read and been told that installing VGs on the horizontal stabilizer only really helps the stall characteristics. I have not tried either of these "fixes" so I cannot personally comment on them.

Just my $0.02.......

As someone that is very regularly out flying with my wife, each in a Husky, I believe that the Husky has strong wake vortices for its size and weight aircraft. My wife and I allow separation on takeoffs, and offset in cruise with the trailing Husky flying a bit higher. Based on our experiences, it is easy for me to see how a Husky flying circular patterns over a coyote could encounter its own vortice at low altitude and airspeed and depart controlled flight with insufficient altitude to recover. I don't have enough experience with a Cub to compare its vortices to the Husky. Mike Vivion has described alternate methods to a standard circle in the Husky for years, and we have adopted these for observing game or other objects on the ground.

Where is "Flagold" Matt when you need him?? :lol: 8)

John Scott

Dave,

There were two Border Patrol Husky accidents, one fatal, one not, but badly injured. There were witnesses to both accidents, and the pilot survived the second. These involved some pretty extreme maneuvering at VERY low level, and apparent wake encounters. They were not circling repeatedly. Not long ago, Border Patrol lost a Cessna, with a fatality. They've also lost a few Cubs. You would have to look at the numbers of flight hours for each plane, vs the total hours, vs the number of accidents to actually say anything about that. I don't think anyone has done that. I sure haven't.

Same goes for ADC. The fatal accident they suffered in a Husky not long ago was a classic circling stall/spin. This was a very different accident scenario than the BP accidents. I don't know how many Husky accidents they had, but the most recent ones were that one and one in SD that the pilot flew into the ground. There was another in training several years ago, and the relatively new pilot flew the plane into the ground on a gunning run. No loss of control in either of those. Target fixation happens sometimes.

The point is, there is no consistency to the scenarios in these accidents, to the best of my knowledge, and I've looked at many of them pretty carefully.

I have lost several good friends in Super Cub accidents, all high time very experienced pilots. Most were stall/spins. Why would a high time, very experienced Cub pilot lose control of an airplane? Particularly in very benign weather, as seems to often be the case. Answer that one, and we could make all these airplanes a lot safer.

I've flown both Super Cubs and Huskys quite a lot in low level maneuvering flight and frankly, I don't see much difference, except that either can kill you. They fly different, and the new wing Husky flys very different than the old wing airplane does.

I think Wayne Mackey has what could be a great tool to prevent this sort of accident in ANY of these airplanes. I looked at his plane this last week, and it is pretty interesting. He's done a lot of flight test with pretty remarkable results.

I wouldn't be afraid to fly a Husky, a Cub, a Scout, a Cessna or a Maule in low level looking at stuff on the ground. None of them has really nasty characteristics, but as the saying goes, they're all so gentle that they can just barely kill you.....

But, the powers that be have the ultimate answer: It's called a UAV.

Boy would that suck. I'll take my chances with these beautiful little machines, thanks...

MTV

husky

About 2 months ago I talked to Roger Meggers over in Baker Mt. He has owned and flown huskys for several years, I have no idea how much time he has in one but he is a very experienced pilot in cubs and huskys. He has done his share of dusting and predator control also. He flat out stated that if you try to turn a husky like you can coyote turn a cub it will get you sooner or later.

Just wondering if any of you guys agree with Roger's opinion.

Dave