• 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!

Pa-18 or Husky?

Talkeetnaairtaxi

Registered User
Iliamna Alaska
Pa-18 or a Husky?

I spent most of my life in Alaska as a guide. My 2 favorite
Planes to fly have always been cub’s and beavers so I will probably start a war with my comments or have someone put out a contract on my sorry posterior or worse yet my parts suppliers will stop selling me cub parts.

A few weeks ago I was asked by a friend to test fly a new Husky, he figured since I have over 7,000 hrs working PA-18’s he wanted me to compare the new Husky to a Cub.

I Test flew a brand new Husky in Idaho. Starting at over 4,000 feet
elevation with a 180 lb person in the back seat and 2/3 fuel I did a lot of stalls, slow flight and a few dozen landings

I must admit I liked the Husky a lot. The husky is at least 20 mph faster than a cub, gets off the ground as short as a Cub and has better stall characteristics than a cub. Short field landing seem OK but not quite as short as a light 160 hp cub. Landings felt like I was in my heavy 180 hp cub. The only things I did not like on the Husky was toe brakes and that you cannot lay down and sleep in the Husky like you can in a cub. baggage.

I test flew a new Cub Crafters Top Cub for the same Client. Now the rub, I was put on the spot and asked what he should buy to fly Caifornia, Idaho, Nevada and eastern Oregon. After a lot of tought I grudging told him to buy the Husky over the Top Cub.

The reality is $200,000.00 buys a very nice brand new Cub or Husky but they are still only a 2 place plane, for $200K he could buy both of my Cubs.
 
Ever wonder why everyone compares the other airplane to a super cub??
because it's a super cub!!

Just wait till he tries to do a change from wheels to floats...

I would not trade my super cub for one.
 
TAT,

Jeeeeeeezzzzz, Man!!! You're gonna get em riled up again :lol: .

I hope you got a solid piece of masonry to hide behind :peeper

In the high density altitudes in that part of the world, it's hard to beat the Husky.

Have him get some dual with Bob Jones, associated with Aeromark.

The Top Cub I'm flying right now is also a very nice airplane, by the way. But they are still pretty different airplanes.

And, NO, the Husky is NOT a Super Cub. It flies very different (and different isn't necessarily bad, just different).

People who think the Husky is "just like a Cub" are the ones who wind up bitching about the plane, because they never learned to fly it.

Both great planes, both have advantages, but again, in the very high density altitudes in that part of the world, it's going to be hard to beat the Husky.

MTV
 
I was with Bob Hoff the Owner of Aero Mark when I test flew the Husky. Without his instruction from the back seat on how to fly a husky I would not have the high opinion that I do of the Husky. I plan on getting a few hours of time with Bob Jones before I bring the Husky to Oregon for the New Owner. You are right it takes a different technique to fly the Husky than it does a cub.

I am not trading my cubs for a husky but I do like the plane a lot. I see advantages of each plane
 
Of course, on floats, I just love the r985 in the Beaver, and per seat it may be a value compared to those others!
 
I think for $200 K, either the Top Cub or the Husky is going to be pretty well loaded. I think they both start at $150 or so. Nevertheless, they aren't cheap.

MTV
 
TAT,

Oh, yeah, Bob Hoff was just inducted into the Idaho Aviation Hall of Fame. He is truly a gentleman, and a good pilot to boot. He also has a VERY nice Staggerwing.

If you see him, say hi for me.

MTV
 
Husky.....very nice and new compared to my 1961 SC. It flies faster because it has a faster wing, a Clark-Y airfoil. From 20 yards it LOOKS like a SC though doesn't it? (Maybe even closer than that.) I really think it comes down to what you want to spend your $$ on and what are the advantages or disadvantages of either of them. This debate will never end........will it? I wouldn't mind having a Norseman. :angel:
 
The first Huskys seemed ok but not great for true short field landings. BUT,
The newer ones with the improved wing seems much better.

George and his bride Charlie are the local Husky drivers and their newer model is very impressive.

Since they had a tricked out light weight Super Cub built as well, they have an interesting take on the subject.

Although for $200,000 I can get a C-180 on Floats and a mid-time 60 something supercub.
 
Scruff,

The main reason the Husky is faster is that the Husky has much less angle of incidence between the fuselage and wing, and the motor points the same direction as the airplane.

Mark of Thrustline has the solution to that second one for cubs.

Now who's copying whom?

MTV
 
Ok guys, my curiosity has got the best of me - - I often read that the Husky must be flown differently than the Cub, but I don't recall ever reading in what way - - so - - could you please explain some of the specifics? It sounds too intriguing to let it pass any longer!
 
smitty172 said:
Ever wonder why everyone compares the other airplane to a super cub??
because it's a super cub!!.....................

Not to say that other airplanes don't measure up or even surpass them, but there are three single-engine GA airplanes that seem to be the benchmarks that other aircraft are compared to: Supercub, Skywagon, Bonanza. That says a lot!

Rooster
 
12 Geezer,

Do a search on this forum. There is a LOOONNNNGGGG thread on this way back.

The most noticeable difference is the Husky requires very precise airspeed control on final to land or it will float forever. The Cub is more forgiving on this, due to the drag profile.

A lot of pilots are afraid to fly the airplane that slow on final, but it is rock solid at very low speeds, and a touch of power will catch anything that develops. Frankly, that's how you get a Cub to perform also, but being sloppy in a Cub will still result in fairly short landings.

The Husky requires that you get the nose up to slow down. The engine and cowl aren't pointed at the dirt like on the Cub, and the fuselage angle of incidence is, I believe 1 degree, compared to the Cub's what?? 6? As a consequence, to land slow and short in a Husky, you have to get the nose up, and it then gets in the way. As a consequence, off airport, I fly a forward slip to the touch to allow me to see. Not a big deal, but different.

And, you can't fly a Husky off trim, unless you look like the governor of California. Not for long, anyway. Trim it, and it works. Use the trim ALL the time, and it works fine. A Cub is easy to fly off trim. Not necessarily a good or bad thing, but you can't do that in the Husky.

Those are the big TECHNIQUE issues. There are other issues different, of course.

MTV
 
Like Mike said, "...precise airspeed....on final...". and this doesn't mean a Husky Driver's eyes are on the ASI on short final. There is good feel and a bit of power will get you out of any increasing sink rate that you feel.

Ditto what Mike said on flying the H-bird trimmed well. The control springs are heavy and you'll know immediately (because your muscles are pumping up) if she's out of trim.....and the trim wheel works well with very little movement. I like the trim wheel.

PS Mike, Mark at Thrustline Mod copied the J-3 thrustline, not the Husky. Go back to your archived 1987 (1986?) magazine article when the Husky broke out. Christensen said he copied the -18 in most respects. Heck, he even copied/designed-in(?) The pulley misalignment at the outboard end of the front lift strut.

All true, but I'm just messing with you Mike, CUZ I CAN. :D DAVE
 
I'll keep my Super Cub. I can't afford a Husky. Besides from what I hear from every other pilot around their plane will outperform my Super Cub. They always tell me their plane or their buddies plane will outperform my Super Cub. I must have been flying a really crappy airplane for the last 12 years but I don't know much. I just enjoy flying my poor performing Super Cub.
 
Which specific configuration of cub vs. which specific configuration of Husky? The question is a lot more complicated these days with all the different choices available.
 
Based on a number of different Huskies, real world best speed is about 108 knots on 31 inch Bushwheels, skis or straight floats, and 10 knots faster on 800 tires.
 
GeorgeMandes,
Does that mean that the 200 hp fuel injected Husky has the same air speed as the 0-360's? And is the airspeed the same w/ or w/o the MT-prop?
 
Picking a airplane depends on your mission at hand, there are a lot of days when I would pick the Husky but there are some I would much rather be in my cub. These airplanes may look alike but are different. Been flying cubs a fair while now. I've had the same cub for the last 22 yrs. Lots of times I wished I was in a Husky enroute but almost always when I get where I start hunting and try to find a place to land I'm glad to be in a cub (When I'm on wheels). When I quite hunting from an airplane or leave Alaska I would consider a Husky.
 
The Husky's constant speed prop plays into the cruise speed thing as well.
A 40 inch pitch sandbar or float prop on a PA-18 only gives you so much speed no matter how high you run your engine.

Of course that Husky contant speed makes a difference on how much weight is hanging on the nose as well..
 
Does that mean that the 200 hp fuel injected Husky has the same air speed as the 0-360's? And is the airspeed the same w/ or w/o the MT-prop?

I have all of one hour in a 200 HP Husky, so I can't comment on it from personal experience.

I have heard, from people with 200 HP Husky experience, that down low there is no difference between the 180 and 200, but the 200 has a performance advantage above 10,000 feet. The 180 Husky is lighter and less nose heavy than the 200.

We argue for days about the benefits of the MT, versus the 80 Hartzell, versus the stock prop. I do know the MT weighs less than either Hartzell, has a better drag profile on landing (see Mike V's comments on flying the Husky) and reduces stall speed compared to the 80 Hartzell. Whether the MT is faster is unclear.

A Cub is easier to push around on the tundra than a Husky, and has better loading capacity. On Bushwheels, a new wing Husky is close to a Cub on landing (depending upon the individual Cub and the pilot), equal in takeoff at sea level and far better at high DA, faster in cruise, and light years ahead in turbulence because of the ailerons on the Husky. Far better than the Cub on floats.

George
 
I fly with a 2001 Husky as he is my hunting partner. I throttle back in my 185 but his airspeed is consistently around 130 mph. Comfort factor in a husky is higher, and landing and t/o performance in the Husky is very close to a s/c.
 
Wonder what the cruise would be with Burls "Cub style" gear / AOSS and a belly pod. Just looking for an "apples to apples" comparison.
We have been running two Huskies with the fairings removed, which is close to the AOSS arrangement, but no pod. Have not done hard testing, before and after, but the difference between fairings on and off isn't obvious. We are scheduled to be the installation ship #1 for Burl's gear soon, so we will run that Husky against another with factory gear.

Since we are seeing about the same TAS at high speed cruise, on Bushwheels, skis and straight floats, a reasonable comparison might be between a Husky on Wipare straight floats and a Super Cub. Best power is 108 knots TAS, and you can easily cruise over 100 knots throttled back. What would you expect to see with a Cub?

George
 
George,

Frankly, I doubt that I know a more completely trained and practiced pilot than you, and you certainly got to experience the best of light cubs vs the Husky. I keep wanting to ask you about the "ailerions in turbulence" comments you have made here and before.

I tend to not jerk the stick everytime a wing drops in the cub in turbulence. It seems that I'm always just behind what the wind and the cub are doing, and tend to be satisfied with a general instead of immediate level attitude. I also have the habit of flying the cub with my feet rather than my hands; so, the feet seem to be using the rudder more than the hands are using the ailerons especially when being kicked about by turbulence.

Is another difference that you fly the Husky with the ailerons more because of the aerodynamic difference in the aircraft? With that apparently heavier tail I'd be inclined to use my feet even more.

I worry about yaw, you all.

Merry Christmas.

GR
 
charlesf said:
Comfort factor in a husky is higher, and landing and t/o performance in the Husky is very close to a s/c.

Hmm, I find the Husky to be very noisy in the cabin compared to the supercub, so it is less comfortable for me in that regard, but I guess 20mph faster comes at some cost.

Although my Husky time is limited to around 20 hours or so, I did get comfortable in it, but you don't wear that plane quite the same way you do a cub - in my opinion.

sj
 
Gary,

I'm with you on the rudder thing, in the Cub and the Husky. My first exposure to a Super Cub was one with extended wings, droop tips, and stock ailerons. I quickly realized that the ailerons on that particular airplane were pretty much irrelevant. Not so with Cubs with stock wings, or ones that have had the ailerons lengthened or moved.

That said, NO Cub has anywhere near the aileron effectiveness as a Husky. The new wing Husky is even more aileron effective. The ailerons are VERY effective right down into and below the stall.

Does that mean I rely on the ailerons to pick up a wing in turbulence? Not really. Course, I step on the rudder to pick up a wing in a Warrior, too :lol: .

The ailerons on the new Husky are REALLY nice. Very smooth, very effective, and you can really work the airplane nicely and comfortably at low level in maneuvering flight.

Most Cubs lose some aileron effectiveness as they get slow. Read the posts on the VG kits on teh Cub. Virtually everyone who likes them says one thing they really like is that the VG's give back some aileron effectiveness at high AOA.

Crash, if you truly want an apples to apples comparison, why not compare your Cub to an identical Cub?

They are different aircraft. The Husky doesn't need a belly pod to carry gas, cause it has WAAAAAAYY more range than most Cubs. It really doesn't need a cargo pod for "stuff" cause there's lots of room in the baggage compartments of the Husky. The down side to that is that the baggage compartments are limited in weight carrying capacity, and in size of stuff that'll fit. Volume-wise, the Husky has a pretty big baggage space, but the HIGHLY MODIFIED extended baggage of many Cubs will allow stowage of very long stuff, which won't fit in a Husky.

But, again, they are not apples and apples, and never will be.

Ain't that grand?? We got choices!!

MTV
 
Back
Top