How many Husky Drivers?

Seat base is part of the airframe.
New pilots seat folds forward.
This airframe was on its back.



Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

Do you have any idea what that fuselage weighed?? I have asked that question for years as a comparison to a cub and have never gotten an answer.

Flyingde said:

Do you have any idea what that fuselage weighed?? I have asked that question for years as a comparison to a cub and have never gotten an answer.

Click to expand...

No idea.

My guess is a ~20-30 lbs more. Lots more structure, tabs and just more to it.

Listening to the folks in Afton I get the feeling they err toward durability and safty over weight savings.
That plus gizmos, CS prop, Oregon aero cushions, 50 gallon tanks result in 1,300 lbs planes.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

Bill.Brine said:

Unlike a Cub every Husky has a five point harness attached directly to the airframe. Not just weld on tabs, bolted to the seat base or who knows what was cobbled together in 1977 with a well intentioned owner manufactured part, but a harness that is attached directly to the tubular airframe structure.

Click to expand...

Most Super Cubs that have been rebuilt in the last 20 years have Atlee Dodge STC'd seat belts to the floor. Several threads here on SuperCub.org on that modification.

Steve Pierce said:

Most Super Cubs that have been rebuilt in the last 20 years have Atlee Dodge STC'd seat belts to the floor. Several threads here on SuperCub.org on that modification.

Click to expand...

This mod was a must for my Cub rebuild thanks to the folks here at SC.org making me aware of it. It requires a bit of justification since my airplane was born a J3 (the STC covers the PA-11 and PA-18) but was converted to a PA-11 configuration. The PA-18 has much better structure for shoulder harnesses, though. But, just about anything is better than nothing in terms of shoulder harnesses in an old airplane.

I recall there was some report on shoulder harnesses in the PA-18 that showed they actually made the airplane itself fare better in a crash because of the way the compressive forced worked. I’ve never seen it but maybe someone knows of it?

There is no doubt that a Part 23 airframe is built solidly, and that carries a weight penalty. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, though in Aviat’s case the lack of adjustable seat until 2018 certainly was a mistake that cost some sales. I was flying a 2017 Husky and I was given carpet samples to stack to get the right spot in addition to a cushion. I am glad to see the new seat for the shorties like me as it adds flexibility and comfort to the modern safety standards.

—Amy

I own a 2004 A1-B and a 1946 J3C-65. I fly them both, and have flown the Husky across the US twice - once to AK, and once to WA. I just fly the J3 locally.

Interesting! What is that?

mvivion said:

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

Click to expand...

Mike

You may not remember me - we met in Montana in probably 2007 or so. My then girlfriend, now wife, Carol and I flew from NC in my then new to me red 2004 A1-B to a flyin at Winifred. We still have the same A1-B, and now have about 1100 hours flying it. Obviously I like it. Over the years I have flown a couple of friends' Super Cubs and enjoyed them, and now I also have a 1946 J3-C, which I am still getting used to after a couple of years of owning it. We have flown the Husky across the US a couple of times, all around the east and Midwest, and to AK and back on our honeymoon. I like it because it is a bit faster than a SC (not quite as slow of course, and it lands longer, as it is heavier). The constant speed prop and the 180 hp is useful. It is also IFR certified, which was a plus for my type of flying, and the heated pitot tube is fairly accurate at very slow speeds. The Husky has a very good service ceiling - probably higher than I will ever go... I can land the Husky in a little less than 400 feet in no wind conditions, which suits my needs just fine. It handles crosswinds very well. Uses less runway to take off than land, and the brakes actually work - unlike my experience with the Cubs that I have flown (including my J-3), although I don't use the brakes that much. The Husky took a bit of getting used to, but I am quite used to it now, and it is a really solidly built aircraft. I really like the feel of it (feels familiar, like a well-broken-in flight jacket). I have flown other Huskies of various ages, although not one of the "new wing" models. I have flown a lot of different aircraft in the 37 years that I have been flying, and they all have advantages and disadvantages. Piper Cubs - SC and other, have a classic mystique, which is kind of cool, and one of the reasons I bought the J3-C. Ladies and kids love those little yellow airplanes with the black lightning bolt!

CM

CamTom12 said:

Interesting! What is that?

Click to expand...

The sign says it is a Fairchild Husky - looks interesting.

CamTom12 said:

Interesting! What is that?

Click to expand...

Chris_McClure said:

The sign says it is a Fairchild Husky - looks interesting.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_F-11_Husky

redfin said:

I’ve heard that a Husky uses 6 bungees, as opposed to a Cub using 4 bungees $? ? ?
Would that really be a reason to choose a Cub over Husky?

Click to expand...

This clears something up for me: after installing cub style gear on my RANS S-7S some years ago, I at first used 1380 bungees (in addition to the Fox air shocks). Eventually, I grudgingly realized I needed to go to 1380 HD bungees. Grudgingly, as I couldn't believe my 780 pound plane needed the HD version.....but I also didn't realized that SC's use FOUR bungees, I only use two, I feel better now. I will also feel better the next time I curse while getting just two of them installed.

My dad is just finishing a CarbonCub EX. I fly for a living. I want to get an airplane that I can go into the back country with him. Having a hard time knowing which way to go. Sounds like CC's, SC's and Huskies all have their good points. I live within a couple hour drive of Afton, plus for the Husky. Enjoying the thread. In doing the research, seems like the new wing in 2005 and the upgrades in 2007 are kind of the sweet spot for the guy that doesn't want to spend a serious amount of money buying but also doesn't want to spend to little. Anyone have a recommendations on where the sweet spot is year wise?

There really is no “sweet spot” for the Huskys. The old wing airplanes are very good as well as the new wing airplanes. Actually there are a few that prefer the old wing, I am not one of them, I have owned both but I sure would wouldn’t not look at one if I was searching to buy. The old wing airplanes are priced less so there is a plus. I have owned Super Cub, Citabria, Arctic Tern and dad had a Scout. I have also owned 2 Husky’s and have one now. For me and the type of flying I do I prefer the Husky and would also prefer it if I moved back to Alaska.

Like you said, all have their plusses and minus’s. I personally think the Husky would be my first choice for your type of flying but if a good Super Cub or Scout came along priced right I would give that strong consideration. Keep in mind, the short take off and landing is only part of the mission. A proficient pilot in any of the mentioned airplanes along with good judgement will be the most important to back country success.

Since you live close to Aviat give Earl Polenz or Steve Anderson a call at Aviat and go fly a Husky, I think you will da joy it as well as learn a lot. Good luck!

Kurt

redfin said:

I’ve heard that a Husky uses 6 bungees, as opposed to a Cub using 4 bungees $? ? ?
Would that really be a reason to choose a Cub over Husky?

Click to expand...

No, there are other reasons to choose a Cub over a Husky but that is not one of them. There are also reasons to choose a Husky over a Cub too.

Kurt

Kurt,
Thanks a ton for your perspective, it was exactly what I was looking for!!

Skyflier said:

Kurt,
Thanks a ton for your perspective, it was exactly what I was looking for!!

Click to expand...

You bet! PM me if you want to talk further on the phone. Kurt

I’ve also have a A1 Husky that I fly on 31 ABW and skis in the winter, along with an experimental cub on amphibs.

Im a new Husky owner (since August), I use my Husky for commuting up and down California. I farm in Oxnard, Salinas, and Redding area. I lived up north for some years but now moved to Oxnard for business reasons. Not sure if anyone is close by, but sure would like to meet some people. I’m working on building a strip on the farm down here...hopefully grass.

A Husky, which was wrecked. Pilot perished-RIP....engine wound up in his lap. It's obvious it was in a spin at impact. Person in the back seat survived with a concussion and some bruises. So, is the Husky airframe more robust than that of a Super Cub? You decide.....



And, I don't know much more about this accident...others here may.

MTV

I will admit to keeping a loose eye on this thread, since it is, after all, my specialty and the question posed is almost the exact one posted 18 years ago that set many heads of hair ablaze.

I will admit to the following: not a single one of you has done more dumb things that I in a Husky - I am quite certain of it. Flew under numerous tight bridges, under power lines, through a hanger, on and on. All for the video vault. In my defense I was at least trained for it by some of the best WWII tricksters to ever fly at Ayres and I was lucky to be there when a stunt pilot named Chuck Coe was instructing and was willing to teach that stuff. The only thing that stopped me of suicide by Husky was a stroke. So eat your greens.

I will say this about that - after owning cubs 150 - 180 hp and the Husky (and others too), the SuperCub is much more fun to fly. Light, just delightful and well behaved (to a point). The Husky - was always much more of a work atmosphere to me. Get in it, fly a long ways to do something and fly a long way back. Much more noise, more tiring to me. The cub was ready to play at any time in a flight - the Husky, more of a get it done work type thing.

The Husky was very capable of long range work and I maximized this on flights from Florida to the West any number of times. There was a stunt (later photo) pilot named Jim Wark that I compared notes with frequently (and he became kind a cheerleader for me on the videos) on long range flying. We were both students of Lindberg's techniques in the Pacific and started applying that in flying over-square. Much the same as the mention of "Husky" was heresy 18 years ago here - any talk of "over-square" flying was heresy on the Husky board at that time. So we simply kept quiet about most of it. Jim would fly 2" over and would regularly go from middle Colorado (Pueblo) to Atlanta non-refueled. I was much more aggressive and would fly 5" over (which horrified him), but I can say if you ever find yourself low on fuel - use it - it just might save the day. The last flight I made was a test at 13.5 on all points of the compass with speeds, manifold pressures, cylinder temps at max leaning for an upcoming trip to Wyoming from Fl that I never made. When you coupled the range with either a low or high pressure system to get the boost you wanted the results could be phenomenal (in fairness I did this with one of the SC's too, and managed to beat a C-182 to Florida by flying at 11.5 with a 100 knot tailwind - they kept asking center what type aircraft it was gaining and then passing them).

Summation of the two in my world: The Husky as a regular tool for long range flying and then being capable of STOL is everything the Cub is to regular STOL flying with the occasional long trip.

Picture: the young MM in front of the airplane that almost killed him (1980 - Thrush S2R - 600) when it quit on T.O. at 300 feet. Did a 270º turn at Albany airport and pancaked on a taxiway (cracked back).

Happy and safe flying to all of you.

Just replaced my 8 year old bungees on my Husky. They were actually in very good condition, I just changed them because it was time. A combination of 1280Hd’s and 1380’s. I think they were about $30 a piece give or take a bit. Took 2.5 hours but we were putting, I’m confident we could shave an hour off that or more next time. Not a big deal.

People complain about the screws and panels, well at least you can actually get inside to see or work on things. I would much rather unscrew panels than cut fabric.

Keep in mind, all this talk about speed also is about miles per gallon too. Less fuel required per mile equals more range (no cans in baggage, yay!) and also less fuel required to carry for a given mission so that will help offset some of the heavier empty weight to begin with. I have over 875 pounds of LEGAL useful load, I can get in and out of any short stuff I ever plan on utilizing and I can fly from SW Michigan to the state of Maine nonstop with over 2 hours reserve fuel left. Did it many times on 31’s. Great all around airplane. Still love Super Cubs too. Match the plane to the mission.

Kurt

The flying Jim Wark did in Husky all over North America was amazing! He took some stunning photos and published some awesome books. He passed away a few years back, I sure miss his contributions. He put over 9,000 hours on his Husky if I remember correctly. I think his son John still owns it.

Over square ops in a Husky are fantastic. Incredible miles per gallon or gallons per hour efficiency. Lycoming says over square up to 9 inches is ok if I remember correctly. I routinely operate 5 inches over square. I have the MT Ultra prop, great prop! The Trailblazer is a great prop but I like the Ultra better, my brother and buddy both have Trailblazers and I out cruise them and out climb them by a small margin, not much but it is noticeable. I think these props make the low RPM and over square ops really work great. The stock metal Hartzell will also do well over square but you do have an operating RPM restriction with the 76 Hartzell, the 80 doesn't have this restriction but its heavy, the Ultra, original MT 2 blade and Trailblazer are the way to go.

G44 said:

The flying Jim Wark did in Husky all over North America was amazing! He took some stunning photos and published some awesome books. He passed away a few years back, I sure miss his contributions. He put over 9,000 hours on his Husky if I remember correctly. I think his son John still owns it.

Over square ops in a Husky are fantastic. Incredible miles per gallon or gallons per hour efficiency. Lycoming says over square up to 9 inches is ok if I remember correctly. I routinely operate 5 inches over square. I have the MT Ultra prop, great prop! The Trailblazer is a great prop but I like the Ultra better, my brother and buddy both have Trailblazers and I out cruise them and out climb them by a small margin, not much but it is noticeable. I think these props make the low RPM and over square ops really work great. The stock metal Hartzell will also do well over square but you do have an operating RPM restriction with the 76 Hartzell, the 80 doesn't have this restriction but its heavy, the Ultra, original MT 2 blade and Trailblazer are the way to go.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder. For those reasons and many more (stunt flying, the Eagles, T-28's, on and on) Jim Wark stands way apart from the rest. What many don't realize is he camped out on many if not most of those flights, a tent was with him everywhere. If you were to meet him outside of aviation, you would probably never know he was a pilot at all. Very humble man. RIP.

Edit: Glad you are personally using the technique to its fullest. In my last conversation with Jim he had good news, the people that had demonized us for using it had become proponents. A lot of silliness went on in the early days. I used my AC #555 for the auto fuel STC and noted no abnormalities when using it over square too. Assigned to Peterson.

I first met Jim Wark at the Air Camper Park at Fairbanks International (don’t miss it if in the area-a great campground). He was camped there after completing his project of photographing the entire US/Canada border....yes, you read that right. He published a book of this photos. Jim was a fascinating gent, who had had at least a half dozen “careers”.

RIP, Jim.

MTV

I have been doing over SQ for years, long before my Husky days. It works!

Kurt

flagold said:

Edit: Glad you are personally using the technique to its fullest. In my last conversation with Jim he had good news, the people that had demonized us for using it had become proponents. A lot of silliness went on in the early days. I used my AC #555 for the auto fuel STC and noted no abnormalities when using it over square too. Assigned to Peterson.

Click to expand...

How about expounding on the Lindbergh procedure? I've heard about it but never any specific details. It is understood using more manifold pressure than the matching rpm number. How many inches over and how is the mixture treated?

The P-38 had turbo superchargers which produced much higher manifold pressure than the matching rpm numbers. So what was used on the P-38 as a rule of thumb wouldn't necessarily transfer to our naturally-aspirated engines.

skywagon8a said:

How about expounding on the Lindbergh procedure? I've heard about it but never any specific details. It is understood using more manifold pressure than the matching rpm number. How many inches over and how is the mixture treated?

The P-38 had turbo superchargers which produced much higher manifold pressure than the matching rpm numbers. So what was used on the P-38 as a rule of thumb wouldn't necessarily transfer to our naturally-aspirated engines.

Click to expand...

That's right - his techniques there were leaning in the P-38's and maximizing propeller efficiency with low rpm. There are two obscure books: "General Kenney Reports" and "They Fought With What They Had" - that reference what he was doing (and it may be only the latter) that I read. JW knew a lot more about Lindbergh than I ever will, but I assume he did the same with the Wright Whirlwind to cross the U.S. and then Atlantic. He certainly would have done it also in the 1933 mapping of the Pacific by using the lowest propeller speeds possible.

JW had done all this (testing lowest prop speed/highest mp/leaning with cat) with his own airplane, but I had the A1B working up the auto fuel numbers and we compared notes and flight frequently. I had overhauled 0360's personally and knew they were robust, enough to be used on helicopters with an over square outside my comfort level (noted above 9"), but I started working up. 5" was no problem, the next reasonable target (for me) was 7". What would stop me was airframe shake - the slow speed and big bite of the prop could shake the aircraft when turning downwind.

I had a C-180 and used it on that too although it is outlined in the 180J book - a slight over square was allowed.

I won't post any of my numbers since it's been 15 years since I advanced a throttle and would simply be irresponsible at this point. Not a thing wrong with testing out your own numbers with the engine book & pilot op guide in hand though. Good luck.

Yes, when those discussions were going on in the Husky forum, I called Lycoming Tech and asked if Lycoming approved of running the O-360 over square. Note that no over square settings are listed in the operators handbook. They said they’d get back to me, via email. A couple weeks later, I got a very brief message: “O-360 may be run up to nine inches over square”. Signed: Lycoming Tech.

It sure worked for me in a few Huskys

MTV

mvivion said:

Yes, when those discussions were going on in the Husky forum, I called Lycoming Tech and asked if Lycoming approved of running the O-360 over square. Note that no over square settings are listed in the operators handbook. They said they’d get back to me, via email. A couple weeks later, I got a very brief message: “O-360 may be run up to nine inches over square”. Signed: Lycoming Tech.

It sure worked for me in a few Huskys

MTV

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember you. I left the list (and virtually all else) abruptly and simply disappeared for 3 years after the stroke (I believe you were thinking of leaving AK) - this is what happened: I was 1500 feet down in the Royal Gorge just around the corner from the waterfall (where the FS has an overlook of) on Taylor Creek off the Rogue River (Oregon) where I had 4 unimproved gold claims I was going to open up. I had walked a path and then the creek a mile from the entrance point and could hear the waterfall when a hot drop of rain hit the back of my head. I looked up and there was nothing but clear sky and at that moment my left hand went dead. I walked over to a bolder and sat on it figuring this would be it. Nothing happened other than my arm started tingling and I developed an intense headache. I had a bottle of aspirin and a couple of Cokes in a bag so I took an aspirin and drank a Coke and then a second. A few hours later my dog started whining as it was getting towards 5 pm (cold sets in) and since I hadn’t died as expected I started walking out and obviously made it.


When I got back to Florida I picked up the guitar and in a very unhealthy way locked myself in the house for years and obsessively played over and over until I got my hand working again. Slowly I sold the airplanes off one by one until the Husky went last. There’s a fine fellow here that bought 3 of them I think. At any rate, I am also a 100 ton Master Near Coastal (operate as Capt. 200 miles off the coast) so we (Connie & I) turned the ship (trawler we had) towards making movies with that when I improved. In between we still made quite a few gold prospecting movies, she would stick a hat on my head and I’d babble my bit and she’d do the work. She covered it all very well, most never knew anything had happened. We moved into the trawler routine easy, lived on the thing on and off for years, sold that and now I make some fishing & cooking movies here on Lake Eufaula, Alabama or whatever else comes to mind. Nothing stressful. Strictly no flying allowed.


The only one off the list I kept in contact with was Jim since we’d had a relationship established by that point. I had met him initially at an airshow in the 70’s. Good to hear from you, hope you and yours are well and stay safe.