• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

How many Husky Drivers?

I've flown Huskys for work, on wheels, floats and skis. Great airplanes in all three categories.

Adolph Galland, the famous German fighter general, responded when asked which aircraft was his favorite, something to the effect that it was "The one I was flying that day".

And, that's a pretty good approach.
MTV
 
I am contemplating this right now. Should I make the switch?

I have a 150 cub set up with all the good options including big tires, amphibs and hydraulic skis, and I absolutely love this airplane until the trip distance ticks over the 100 mile mark.

Running hard, floats, skis, or big tires - average speed of 87mph. All my non cub guys are waiting for me or doing slow flight so I can keep up.

i can hover And land like a helicopter, but I can’t Get anywhere.

I like the ease of going from floats to wheels and back vs husky with new bungees every time, but I have passed on several trips due to time and distance.

Thinking about making a change. Anyone care to advise?
 
In my experience, our 160 hp Cubs were ~ 20 mph slower than the Huskys, when mounted on the same gear (as in same model floats, same size tires, same skis.

That was the primary reason I switched to a Husky. The distances I needed to travel were too long to do in a Cub.

MTV
 
In my experience, our 160 hp Cubs were ~ 20 mph slower than the Huskys, when mounted on the same gear (as in same model floats, same size tires, same skis.

That was the primary reason I switched to a Husky. The distances I needed to travel were too long to do in a Cub.

MTV
Mike, Do you think that there is more difference than just a fixed pitch vs constant speed prop?
 
Heresy I know but I am now a huge fan of another Piper product - the PA-28 B Cherokee 235. Cheap enough to have in addition to a Cub so you can still do all the Cub things but - for the longer flights - massive useful load, 130knot cruise and can operate out of a 1500’ strip.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Mike, Do you think that there is more difference than just a fixed pitch vs constant speed prop?

Pete,

Well, 180 hp engine vs 160, Constant Speed prop vs fixed (and flat Borer props to boot), and the Husky may be just a bit more streamlined....

I suspect the prop is the biggest difference, maybe.

MTV
 
If it were up to me, I would have three.

If I could justify two, the Cub would be one of them. I guess I am looking for a compromise.
 
If you want to compare supercub speeds, my opinion is that the 100 mph mark is somewhat aligned with the triple digit mark in powerboats. Many versions will get to that mark. Running above it (significantly) often takes big bags of money. More so in powerboats than cubs, but same theme. 10k can net you a mere 2-3 mph. It’s a drag thing. Either get rid of the drag or overcome it with power.

But back to Cubs.

The FX3 does well using a light airframe but really it’s a HP and CS prop that bring it up to the 120mph mark.
In that respect it’s similar to a Husky or a Bearhawk. Metal wings are fairings surely allow the Bearhawk to fun faster on the same power. None of them are lighter!
I’m waiting for Clint or some other out of the box thinker to bolt a set of Bearhawk wings (metal ribblet airfoil) onto a Javon or even a 4 place airframes Alaska fuselage and PA-18 tail, and see how it flies compared to a SuperCub.

Mojo, in response to your situation, which is not unlike mine, I can only offer this - pick a new airplane, pick new slower friends to fly with, or test the limits of their patience by asking them to slow down. No good answers.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
I’m waiting for Clint or some other out of the box thinker to bolt a set of Bearhawk wings (metal ribblet airfoil) onto a Javon or even a 4 place airframes Alaska fuselage and PA-18 tail, and see how it flies compared to a SuperCub.

I was researching this a while back, the spar spacing is only an inch or so different between the two. It’s been really nice to have 4 seats in my Pacer so I changed my thinking to just building a Bearhawk when the time is right.
 
I fly a 2006 A-1B-200. I love Super Cubs but prefer the speeds of the Husky. I just don't have that kind of time. With a Husky I have flown from El Paso to Kansas City, spent two hours on the ground, then continued on to Canton, OH. All in one day. In a Super Cub I have made the same trip and had to overnight in Wichita. If 50 or 75 feet in landing or takeoff distance makes a difference to somebody that's fine. But if that kind of tolerance is needed to make it in or out of a strip I don't want to be there in the first place. I do prefer the lighter controls on the Super Cub for coyote chasing.

perhV2I.jpg

I tend to not have a type loyalty. Aside from the Husky I have a Cessna 180, Comache 260B, RV-8, RV-3B, Cessna 140, Nanchang CJ-6A, Luscombe 8A and half of two Air Tractor 802 air tankers. Oh. And one ex. ;-)
 

Attachments

  • perhV2I.jpg
    perhV2I.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 202
I have gotten a kick out of all these Husky threads over the years. I guess it all depends on your mission. Speed is not in the top of my priority list. Yanking and banking down the Brazos river and getting in and out of some ass hole strips is along with a few trips to Utah and Idaho a year if I am lucky. I have quite a bit of time in an A1A Husky and have flown the B and C as well. Put Super Cub gear on a C and noticed that it slowed it down. I like the control harmony of the Super Cub and feel like I wear it. I think the Husky is a great airplane I just don't like the feel of it like I do the Cub. Just a dumb ass mechanics 2 cents.
 
I don't have much experience with a Husky. With that in mind 30 years ago I installed a new set of floats on a new Husky, then gave the owner his 10 hours of dual for the insurance company. My impression was that is was similar to a PA-18 except at low speeds when the wing just didn't feel like it was up to the job as a PA-18 does. I do a lot of my flying analysis by feel. Numbers are good, but the seat of my pants tells me more. Also from a mechanic's perspective I hated working on it because there were too many screws holding it together. Heck there is a whole box of screws just holding the covers over the shock cords. Normally I could do a complete EDO 2000 new float installation in eight hours including assembling the floats. The Husky took sixteen hours.

Perhaps the newer wings fly better, I've been told they do.
 
There are not many airplanes that I don't like. If I dig in to why, it is usually not general disdain, it is more something like "I don't like flying Cherokee's from the left seat because I have to drag myself across the passenger seat". In the case of the Huskys - which I probably have only around fifty or so hours in - it's that the seat doesn't move and my knees hit the instrument panel. Also for "that kind of flying" I prefer a lighter tail. But I agree with Pierce - every plane has a mission, some have a wide array of missions, some have a very narrow one (like a Fireboss for example).

airplanes.jpg
 

Attachments

  • airplanes.jpg
    airplanes.jpg
    82 KB · Views: 232
I think Steve made an important point or two. For years I’ve told folks who asked about Husky vs Cub that it’s all about the mission.

If I were flying a relatively short distance to land on a shortish off airport Site, I’d likely choose the Cub. If, on the other hand, I need to fly 150 miles, do three or four hours of low and slow, then return home without refueling, I’d take the Husky. Actually, I’d take the Husky on ANY flight that involved a relatively long cross country. The Husky does a good job in short, off airport sites as well, but it requires a bit more finesse to work as tight as the Cub.

But, on floats or skis, I’d take the Husky, hands down, EVERY day. The Husky outperforms the Cub (and yes, there are exceptions....we’re talking generalities here) on those configurations most days in takeoff performance.

MTV
 
I just flew a new one yesterday with the new trim tab and the IO -390 engine. Trim takes some getting used to as just no stick forces with no spring tension any more. One would get used to it but different after all the years with the spring. The 215HP engine makes it really go fast if you want, but it is nose heavy and it weighed 1447lbs, my other Husky's with 0-360 weigh 1300lb, so big difference to me. I like them light. Nice smooth engine with lots of power but for me I think a light one will outperform it for short stuff.
John
 
I don't have any skin in the game but I will say this. I'm glad there are those terrible inferior designs like Husky's and Maule's. They're made here in America by skilled hands with vendor parts also made here with skilled hands. Isn't it great we have choices?
 
I don't have any skin in the game but I will say this. I'm glad there are those terrible inferior designs like Husky's and Maule's. They're made here in America by skilled hands with vendor parts also made here with skilled hands. Isn't it great we have choices?

Ain't it the truth? Frankly, I'm amazed there are still so many people involved in aircraft and component manufacture.....and thankful.

MTV
 
So it's been a while since anyone has posted Husky information. How many folks do we have here on SuperCub.org that are Husky drivers?

Well, this is a CUB Forum. Says so right in the title.
However, since you asked, I drive a HUSKY and I really like the aircraft..
As stated by several others, the mission is of great importance.
Both are such fun.
Jim
 
Enjoying this thread.

I’ve flown a hundred + different types of airplanes, but I’ve never flown a Husky. Nothing I’ve flown handles as well as a Cub for low and slow, and can carry the load.

When I bought my Cub, I had too many Cub guys tell me they wouldn’t want a Husky. Difficult $$ to change from gear to floats and back, poor handling at Cub slow speeds, not as good in tight spaces, heavier to manipulate when by yourself and digging out, fixed stab with a spring versus trim stab.

I’m being told that newer ones handle better at slower speeds than before, and my mission is changing to longer distances.
 
Enjoying this thread.

I’ve flown a hundred + different types of airplanes, but I’ve never flown a Husky. Nothing I’ve flown handles as well as a Cub for low and slow, and can carry the load.

When I bought my Cub, I had too many Cub guys tell me they wouldn’t want a Husky. Difficult $$ to change from gear to floats and back, poor handling at Cub slow speeds, not as good in tight spaces, heavier to manipulate when by yourself and digging out, fixed stab with a spring versus trim stab.

I’m being told that newer ones handle better at slower speeds than before, and my mission is changing to longer distances.

First question you should be asking when someone tells you about the Husky is: "How much Husky time do YOU have?" Then, fly one for yourself and make up your own mind. Airfoil is same as a Cub. Like most aircraft, it's an acquired taste. For it's mission, it works fine.
"Poor handling at Cub slow speeds" ?? That's funny. I did Dall sheep surveys in a Husky for nearly 15 seasons, and much preferred the Husky to a Cub in that environment. Nothing wrong with either airplane, but there is a LOT of knocking of Huskys out there, often by folks who've never flown one, but they HEARD that.....

MTV
 
Last edited:
One has to fly a Husky differently than a cub. I have both and like them both. Cub can fly a bit slower and land slightly shorter. But Husky is faster and more solid feel to me. Constant speed prop gives great options for smooth flight without the high rpms of trying to go faster in cub. More efficient for low power and fuel savings and still go faster than cub.

Landing a Husky short requires nose up attitude as the flaps are all lift in Husky, if one aims at landing spot and going too fast it just floats on past. Unlike cub where one can point at the spot and hit it without floating past unless going really fast. Fly the Husky like a Helio Courier, nose up and slow, then just plop it down short, over quick. Full flaps on takeoff, do not raise the tail, stick back pressure and it just levitates. Totally different techniques from cub.
Husky to me has better feel for long distances, never get too tired on long flights, cub just vibrates too much after a bit, and is slow!
The new Husky trim tab makes the feel similar to cub, light on controls, they eliminated the big spring that requires trimming all the time, but once used to it no big deal to me. New trim actually feels odd with no resistance.
My thoughts.
John
 
  • Like
Reactions: G44
Enjoying this thread.

I’ve flown a hundred + different types of airplanes, but I’ve never flown a Husky. Nothing I’ve flown handles as well as a Cub for low and slow, and can carry the load.

When I bought my Cub, I had too many Cub guys tell me they wouldn’t want a Husky. Difficult $$ to change from gear to floats and back, poor handling at Cub slow speeds, not as good in tight spaces, heavier to manipulate when by yourself and digging out, fixed stab with a spring versus trim stab.

I’m being told that newer ones handle better at slower speeds than before, and my mission is changing to longer distances.

I agree with their critiques and have flown them both. The predator control and border patrol guys told me the same thing.
 
I have been on and off of this board for over 20 years. Most civil Husky conversation I have seen in a long time. You guys are getting old..... lol...

I always chuckle at the Husky/Cub arguments but the Cessna 180 is welcomed with open arms....

I would wager that the VAST majority of both types are flown in and out of places that you could land a Bonanza. The folks who are really using these things offroad are I am willing to bet a very small minority. At least here in the lower 48. I know I am one of the former.

But those 29's look sooooooo good on there.... lol
 
I never understood why some super cub guys dislike Huskys so much, I guess they feel threatened 

Oh that's just NY Glenn, don't misunderstand him. Put him in any airplane with a tank of gas and he will love every minute of it, even a Husky!:p
 
A famous Galland quote comes from a visit by Goering when the Luftwaffe commander asked Galland if there was anything he needed: "A squadron of Spitfires."
 
When landing in the high country I prefer the Husky. Seems to get out and climb a lot better. However a 180 cub with a MT would be good also.
20150911_113811.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20150911_113811.jpg
    20150911_113811.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 246
Back
Top