• 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?

accidents

Nothing scientific here but it seems that there is quite a few bad wrecks in huskys I mean when you take all the cub flying and cubs that are around yes there is wrecks but there is most always a husky on the FAA accident page and far less of them. Any comments as to why or is it my imagination.
Dave
 
Good grief, look at the Flip Flop chronicles on this site.

On a per capita basis, I doubt if there is a significant difference, but the problem is, it's hard to tell how many hours per year a given type flys.

A lot of folks would argue that the Super Cub is really dangerous as well. And, if you compare the statistics to a Cessna 182, that may be true.

Then again, we use Cubs for different missions than we use 182's.

Also, remember that not all accidents get reported. View Big Rocks II for verification.

MTV
 
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.

Gary:

My perception of how much better the new wing Husky is in turbulence is the reason I sold that 1,122 pound tricked out wide body Cub, that our mutual friend did such an excellent job of building.

Around seven years ago, before I lived in Alaska, I had a beautiful Dan's Cub. After a hour or two, I could fly it better (on wheels) than the Husky I had several years of experience in. I flew it down from AK to the east coast and had it several years there before moving it (and me) to Alaska. While the ailerons were not as good as those on the old wing Husky, they were not objectionable to me.

Over the years, my flying experience and exposure expanded to include helicopters, a tandem turboprop military trainer, jets and the regular assortment of single engine Cessna aircraft. Then something happened --Aviat brought out the new wing Husky in the summer of 2005. We could approach 10 mph slower than the old wing Husky, bringing landing distance down from 325 to 200 feet, the flaps almost doubled the descent rate, and the ailerons felt incredible. Not only did the new ailerons have a greater roll rate but they have less adverse yaw. I am told they took the aileron design from the Pitts.

I have been trained by the FCI folks in their Extra 300's that ailerons are the primary roll control in unstalled flight. Rudder is used to coordinate the use of ailerons in unstalled flight. In a Cub, when a gust rolls me down, and I deflect the ailerons (using coordinated rudder) with little result, I am uncomfortable -- especially close to the ground. While you can stomp on a rudder, I know that inducing yaw (from too little or too much rudder) is a bad thing. If I moved the cyclic in a helicopter or the ailerons in anything else I fly like I do in a Cub, I would get a dramatic result. Yet when I move the ailerons in a Cub, like I do in other aircraft, and nothing happens, I feel like I have had a flight control failure.

The net of all this is that I feel much more comfortable in a new wing Husky in bad air. When a gust rolls you down, you make a tiny correction with ailerons and a scosh of rudder and you are upright. Many times, you make no correction in a new wing Husky, because you know that you have tremendous control authority and can right yourself at will.

Last winter, I flew that new Cub 10 or 20 times. On light air days, I can't imagine anything more relaxing and enjoyable than puttering around across the bay from Homer low and slow in that amazing Cub. Yet, when the air turned bad, I felt uncomfortable for the reasons that I described, and wanted to be in the Husky. For me, my tradeoff is to be prepared on the bad days -- and that means being in the new wing Husky. Especially when you factor in the all the attributes of the new wing and the difference in cruise speed.

In fairness, it isn't just a problem that I have with Cubs. We traded an old wing Husky for a 1980 low time Robertson equipped 185. The Robertson also ruined (in my opinion and that of some 185 saavy friends) the ailerons on the 185. When you get rolled down in bad air, with flaps deflected, you have poor aileron response. We sold that plane and replaced it with a lightweight 62 185 without a Robertson. Of course, people that fly a 206 know that those ailerons are much better than those on a 185, and I wish there was a way to get those onto the Skywagon. I feel so good about the new wing Husky, that I don't enjoy flying the old wing anymore. The ailerons aren't as good, you need to approach a lot faster, and when I set my normal glide path, I have to slip to get down with the old flaps.

I sorry if this is too long winded an answer to your simple question.

George

PS: The weather is Homer has been terrible for the last week -- meaning you are either on the ground wishing you were in the air or in the air wishing you were on the ground.
 
"The net of all this is that I feel much more comfortable in a new wing Husky in bad air".

That says a lot.

If you feel better in bad air with a new wing Husky it must handle quite well in the rough stuff. All I have is an old guy in an old cub, and althought I do not feel comfortable in all situations, I do feel at home.

I think I have a deal on my second cub and since my time is almost all in a SuperCub, at my skill level, it will probably be better to stay with what I know.

It would be fun - just as this string started- to feel the difference.

GR
 
I haven't flown the new Husky wing, but I feel the extended slotted wing is more stable in turbulence than the old Husky wing.
 
Hey Steve,
I use a noise cancelling headset so the noise isn't there. But I have another question for you. In your panel picture, your compass is 40 deg off from your gps. It also looks like the dc buss is right under the compass. I am putting a sc together with a custom panel and I would like the compass to reasonably close. The last cub I built had a remote compass, which was good, but the magnetic compass was less than close on the heading. Any ideas on mount location. Thanks.
 
A rubber meets the road type of question....will the new Husky get in and out shorter then a Plain Jane old 160 or 180hp Super Cub?

I am a lousy Cub pilot and an OK Husky pilot, so it may not be relevant that I can get in and out in a Husky shorter than a Cub. I think the Husky is less technical to takeoff, as you set full flaps, stick back, add power, set a takeoff attitude and it flies off. I think the Husky is more technical to land, as it will float forever with excess speed. You need to flatten out the approach with power, and make a tail low wheel landing.

I don't see how our "light" A1B (1,300 pounds on 31 inch Bushwheels with all the light weight tricks) can ever stop as short as a 1,000 pound Cub. Now, with a 1,250 pound 180 Cub, I think it will be mostly a function of pilot skill.

George
 
I had this same conversation with a friend of mine a few weeks ago. For what he wanted to do I told him to buy a Husky. The way I see it if you aint hauling alot of stuff or trying to win a landing/take off contest the Husky would be a better plane. I know the cub is alot better in the maint dept as far as cheap parts and availablitly but if you only fly 100 hours a year how bad can the Husky be?

If I could get into a Husky for the same money as my Super Cub I would consider it. Got my float rating in a Husky on amphibs a few months ago and thought it was a good outfit. Cruise 115 at 27" and 2500. BTW guy that owns it tried a MT prop and took it off after 17 hours and went back to the 80" Hartzell. Said the MT prop was 5 mph slower.

PS. If I want to go fast I take Scotts Bonanza.
 
There's no sense in getting into another Cub vs Husky discussion with folks that have never flown both airplanes extensively. People that have alot of experience in both types like both airplanes. Also one needs to quit comparing the airplanes based on $200K Huskies. I've bought two 1996 Huskies in the last year for less than $86K and one was full GPS IFR. It's a hell of an airplane for the money.
I don't think you can get a Husky in as short as a Cub, but I heard that one of the dealers teenage kid got one in and stopped in 124ft a few weeks back. Witnessed by a couple of Cub guys.
My personal experience is that I can get in comforably in about 100 ft more than my Cub with the same angle of approach. I can get out shorter and out climb any Cub I've ever flown.
As for speed I've not been far with the current airplane but when I brought the first one home from GA I cruised at 23.5 Sqed and was indicating 120 to 125. Soon as i get a chance I will try to get a camera shot like Crash with the 31"s.
 
One thing that most folks fail to recognize about Husky aircraft, and Cub Crafters Top Cubs, for that matter, is that they are dealing with a new airplane. That means that performance is consistent, the airplane works the same as the next one, etc.

I've flown a LOT of different Cubs, many maintained by the same folks, and I've seen performance ALL over the place. From super performers to real dogs, and weight isn't always the governing factor, either.

There is something to be said for new aircraft. At least you know what you are starting out with.

Note: I don't own a new airplane 8) .

MTV
 
Reminds me of the Reklaw Fly-In a couple of years ago when the local Husky dealer was doing some steep take-offs touch and gos. SJ took off in his SC and almost hovered around in slow flight. Everyone I could see stopped mid sentence and watched. I didn't see that Husky anymore after that. :lol:
 
Crash,

As I recall, the 18 foot takeoff at GULKANA was by an experimental, not by a Super Cub. And, if it was the airplane I think it was (long time ago, in a land far away :cry: ), it could never have been certified due to several mods that wouldn't even be close to being legal. And, the airplane likely did not have more than five or ten gallons of gas aboard. How realistic is that?

Oh, yeah, and it was blowing that day, with big gusts. JW Musgrove got underway with a Single Otter that same day, if I recall, with several passengers and enough gas to go to Tok, in just 88 feet. Blew out a rear window in the tail bounce. Have I got the day right?

In those deals, it's the luck of the gust, the timing, the skill and feel of the pilot AND the airplane that makes the distance. To suggest a Super Cub can take off in 18 feet is simply ridiculous, and misleading without qualification. Heck, in enough wind, I can get airborne without an airplane 8) .

My point wasn't picking on Super Cubs, but rather on the fact that a lot of older airplanes have "issues", and performance is a lot harder to predict, compared to newer ones. My airplane is WAAAYYYYY slower than nearly everyone else's of the type. Why? Eccentrics, in part, but what else? WHo knows? It just is. But it'll get off the ground like a, well--Super Cub, almost :angel: .

As I noted, the CC Top Cub seems to be also really consistent. Buy one of those, and you will get predictable performance. Not so with many Super Cubs, which for the most part nowadays are "Homebuilt" airplanes in everything but certification.

And THAT, to me is the single biggest advantage of the Cub--flexibility to make it what you want from it, NOT whether it takes 150 or 176 feet to get airborne in a 25 knot gusty wind.

I watched a Husky take off in less than ten feet once. It was the prototype, with 200 hp, the factory test pilot flying, and enough gas to go several hundred miles.

Oh, yeah, the wind was on the beak at over 35 knots. And, there were other witnesses, by the way.

So what does that prove? In that situation, I was a lot more impressed with the fact that he could taxi the dang thing than I was with the takeoff run.

Anyway, whether a plane can take off or land in ten feet more or less isn't my prime criteria for selecting an airplane. There are so many other functions of an airplane that takeoff performance is only one of many that I'd consider.

My contention has been for a long time that takeoff distance of a Cub and Husky on wheels is pretty close, all things as equal as you can make them. And, in a lot of situations, the Cub might win.

Where the Husky shines is on floats or skis and with a load, though.

And, that's where takeoff performance really matters more, in my experience. But in the several seaplane STOL contests I've seen, there were no Huskys entered either.

I know of a ski "fly off", with three Huskys, two Cubs and a Scout. The conditions were very deep, untracked snow and it was cold. All airplanes were pretty much full of gas, one person up. All except the Husky I was flying at the time were on straight skis--that Husky was on Rosti-Fernandez 8001 retractable wheel skis. Pilots switched from one to the other aircraft, so it wasn't just one pilot in one airplane.
The finish was like this:

1) Husky, straight skis, with 80 inch Hartzell prop.
2) Husky, retractable wheel skis, with MTV 15 prop.
3) Husky, stock prop, straight skis
4) Super Cub, 160, straight skis
5) Super Cub, 160, straight skis
6) Scout, straight skis.
I don't know the distances, but apparently the finish order was consistent.
No wind conditions, by the way. These results were reported to me by a couple of the participants--I wasn't there, so take them for what they are--rumor :wink: .

MTV
 
Rumor has it that I've landed an A-1B at Lake Hood RNWY 13 in 36 feet from the REIL's (runway end identifier light's).

I'll admit to the tower calling 14 gusting to 18 from 150. I'll admit to having only half fuel, me, and survival gear aboard.

On another note........Anyone know what the problem with the MT prop is these days? I just heard guys were taking 'em off.
 
Dave,

The "problem" was actually two: First, they had the leading edge strip come off a couple of blades. Didn't come all the way off, just started to delaminate. Note that you can operate that prop with a good bit of the leading edge strip gone.

The second issue was some folks found VERY small, hairline cracks near the tips of their props. The MT instructions tell you that small cracks are acceptable, and spells out how to decide what should get fixed and what doesn't need to be. These cracks in some cases, required a strong light and a magnifying glass to find, by the way.

MT has fixed props that had the leading edge delaminated, no charge, though I think folks had to pay shipping costs, at least one way.

MT is also fixing props with the small cracks. It seems--and this is purely speculation--there was a batch of props that suffered this problem. MT is cutting the tips off to 205 cm from the stock 210 length, and laminating on a sheath to fix this issue. I had one of the early props, and I know of several other early props, none of which suffered this issue, whether real or imagined.

MT is fixing these things at no cost, though there is some down time.

I don't know of anyone going back to a Hartzell from the MT, though it could be.

The Hartzell folks are making certain they aren't subject to any liability by condemning their prop hubs every ten years or so, and THEY DON'T offer to fix it for free.

Last I checked, IF you could get a Hartzell compact hub, which you can't, it would cost at least $1400, plus the cost of a full overhaul, for a grand total of AT LEAST $3800. So, I'm going to be doing eddy current inspections every 100 hours till Hartzell's suppliers get off strike, and maybe until I can get approval to put an MT on my airplane.

I'd go with MT in a heartbeat if I could get it approved. Hartzell has now stuck me TWICE on hubs, and I wouldn't buy anything Hartzell builds if I could avoid it.

Sorry for the R and R.

MTV
 
Crash

I was not a fan of the older husky wing. The new husky I flew seemed to land just as short as my 180hp cub (heavy and with out Trust line mod) but not quite as short as my (light) 160hp cub will land. This amounts to a 25-50 foot difference in landing distance.

The Husky seemed to get off the ground about the same as both of my cubs with ½ fuel and a 180lb person in the back. most people really need not be concerned with that small of a difference in the landing.



The climb in the husky is better than any cub I have flown.

As a Guide with my clients paying $1,200.00 a day I need every advantage that I can get so I can get into and out of places most cub pilots are not willing to go. Operating like this is very hard on the cub. The Prop, gear legs, tail wheel, Radio, tail feathers and many other parts have a short life span on a cub that gets worked hard like this. The end of each season (300 hrs) there are at least 15-20 holes in the fabric to patch just from rocks flying off the tires. The way I use my cub it cost me 5% more per hour to operate my cub on wheels than it does my C-185. My cub on floats (Fresh water only) cost me 45% less per 300 hours.

The parts availability of a cub is fantastic. For a working plane that can not afford to have down time waiting for parts the cub will be king of the Alaska bush for a long time.
For Government use or as a private plane where extra time waiting on a parts is not as important I think the husky is a wonderful plane.

I believe that an good Husky pilot flying a new husky will out perform an average cub pilot flying a new top cub. I believe the reverse is also true.

Crash I think you would notice the Husky it did not get in quite as short.
I agree that I personally would rather have a average cub and a C-180 that combined cost about the same as 1 new Husky or 1 new Cub Crafters top cub.

My 160 cub is slow cruses at 87 mph with 31" tires @ 2400 rpm.

Jerry Jacques
 
mvivion said:
........... The second issue was some folks found VERY small, hairline cracks near the tips of their props. The MT instructions tell you that small cracks are acceptable, and spells out how to decide what should get fixed and what doesn't need to be. ..........................
MTV

I've heard enough about the bad shit that happens when a prop blade comes apart that I think I'd be very dubious about declaring any visible damage "acceptable". It's a little late to decide that you were wrong when a piece of blade flies off and the front of the airplane starts doing the watusi.My 2 cents worth....

Eric

Eric
 
Crash,

Like I said, "Any Cub I've ever flown". Never flown any airplane that got off in less than 50 ft in any condition. Maybe my j5 30yrs ago when "I" weighed 100 less and those North Dakota winds were blowin'. Maybe I'll get up to your neck of the woods one day and we'll see how "our" airplanes match up. I'm prepared to buy the beer and the steaks if I lose...

Steve Pierce said:
Reminds me of the Reklaw Fly-In a couple of years ago when the local Husky dealer was doing some steep take-offs touch and gos. SJ took off in his SC and almost hovered around in slow flight. Everyone I could see stopped mid sentence and watched. I didn't see that Husky anymore after that. :lol:

If I get the time off we'll see how they match up at NH this summer!!!!!
 
Eric,

That's the problem, you're thinking in terms of METAL prop blades. The MT blades are wooden, covered with fiberglass. Part of the certification required them to address small "cracks", and they have a VERY specific process to determine if a crack is an issue or not. As I noted, some of the props have been fixed by MT at no cost to the owner, except removal/reinstall. Again, I suspect that there was something going on with a batch of props, because early and very late props haven't seen this.

Virtually every wood prop has some of these little hairline looking cracks, and most of them are in the FINISH, not the blade. A crack in the paint on your metal prop would be of no concern, once you verified that it's not in the blade metal itself.

This is a different material. And it's ironic that the first props used on airplanes were wood. Now we have to learn all about this "New" material all over.

MTV
 
We have been operating the MT props on Huskies for three years. Prop 1 was sold on an old wing Husky, and we haven't heard of any problems with it.

Prop 2 was on a float Husky and developed serious delamination between the blade and the stainless leading edge. That went back to the manufacturer, and we were told they had problems with paint preparation of a batch around then. Prop 2 subsequently developed a serious crack (not cosmetic) this past summer. It went back, and was just returned with the blades shortened to 205 and the new carbon fiber tips. It just went on the plane, so we have no information on the long term durability of the fix.

Prop 3, a 210, developed the cosmetic cracks within 25 hours that Mike has described. Our maintenance person differs with Mike's assessment, and believes they are a a long term durability issue. That prop will be going back for the fix shortly.

Prop 4, a 205, has no cracks in about 100 hours.

Around the time that we and other Husky operators started noticing cracks, I understand that two OAS (I know that isn't their name any more) Huskies in Alaska developed serious cracks. Concerned, we ordered an 80 inch Hartzell. My wife and I flew the same Husky with the 80 Hartzell, and were very unhappy. Our biggest issue was that the comfortable approach speed went up 5 mph with the Hartzell. That was the kiss of death for our use, since landing short has always been the weak point of the Husky versus the Cub. We discussed this quite a bit on the Husky List, without a conclusion, but it appears that the MT allows for a more rearward CG, compared to the 80, and better flow over the tail feathers. For our use, I would rather have the stock 76 inch Hartzell than the 80, completely on the basis of approach speed.

While the long term durability of the MT in a bush environment is still unclear, what is absolutely clear is that the MT is our best choice now. I understand that Hartzell has a new 76 inch composite prop in testing, but that is slightly optimized towards cruise as opposed to climb. I believe they also have a 78 in the pipe line, that will be more of a climb prop, but time will tell if it gets into production.

While we have been frustrated with our MT props at times, the factory is supporting them. We have also been given very good support by Larry Schlasinger and Dwayne Clemens (the folks with the Husky STC). As one more data point, I tested the 83 inch two blade MT against the 88 inch three blade Mac on a 1962 520 equipped 185, and the MT substantially out performed the Mac in climb to 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 feet from sea level on the same plane, on the same day. That result was totally unexpected. The MT was also about 40 pounds lighter than the Mac.

George
 
George,

The assessments of the small cracks in the MT props were not mine, but rather those of the owner of MT, if you'll recall his message to that effect, as well as the instructions for continued airworthiness of the prop.

I don't have a dog in that fight, but I do find it interesting that MT has repaired every prop an owner has squawked, at little cost to the owner.

Can't say the same for Hartzell.

MTV
 
How do you explain the large approach speed difference w/ a constant speed prop?

Wish I could. As I said in the previous post, we have speculated about the MT providing better flow over the tail feathers and a more rearward CG compared to the 80 Hartzell.

If it were just airflow, then the 80 Hartzell should be better than the 76 Hartzell? However, we think the 76 is better than the 80 on lowering stall, so that may shoot that theory.

If it were just CG, we should be able to load the rear baggage to the same CG and get similar results. And we don't.

I can't explain why, but our new wing Husky approaches comfortably at 45-48 mph IAS light to mid weight with the MT, and feels like it is falling out of the sky with the 80 Hartzell at the same speed. Air work confirms the stall takes place at higher airspeed with the 80, so it isn't just a perception.

Sorry, Mike, didn't mean to misquote you. It is unsettling when new MT props develop cracks so quickly, and it doesn't make you feel good about their long term durability. We are hoping this fix takes care of the problem.

For our use, the MT is best, and the 76 Hartzell is second choice. For others less sensitive about weight and stall speed, the 80 seems to be a good prop. People seem to feel it is a good performer on climb and cruise. I am looking forward to some Hartzell composite choices, too. As a Husky person, more prop choices is a good thing.

George
 
George,

Thanks for the honest answer about the different props.
The quoted 45 mph approach speed is nothing like what I experienced in the Huskies with the old wing. It sound very impressive.
At about what speed does it start the serious sink rate that secures your hand on the throttle.
When you increase you load, does the approach speed need to go up as much proportionally as a straight wing cub?
 
The quoted 45 mph approach speed is nothing like what I experienced in the Huskies with the old wing. It sound very impressive.
At about what speed does it start the serious sink rate that secures your hand on the throttle.
When you increase you load, does the approach speed need to go up as much proportionally as a straight wing cub?

My standard Husky approach (with the new wing) starts abeam the touch down point at 55 mph IAS and flaps 30. At that speed, the plane isn't a floater, and you control glide path with power. Once on final, speed is reduced to 50, and you adjust your aiming point to just short of where you want to touch. From there in, you add power, increase pitch and start working the wing. How slow you go is a function of the air, your weight, and how short your strip is. With the spot made, I reduce power, flare to a three point attitude, and roll onto the mains at touch down. I typically do not dump flaps (unless the surface is soft or I am floating). I brake as much as I can, or need to, and hold the tail up as long as possible for visibility and better braking. With full flaps, I am configured to go around, and that is a sure thing as long as the tail is still up. Generally, I commit to land when the tail comes down.

With this method, there is not a serious sink rate. Perhaps I could land shorter by timing a bigger sink rate with the correct application of power, but the downside is a possible bounce and more of a commitment. My method is relatively benign, and results in a good landing or a safe go around perhaps at the expense of a possibly shorter landing with the high sink rate method.

I know that Bob Hoff, the Husky dealer based in Idaho, has demonstrated to me a 125-150 foot landing at 5,000 feet elevation onto grass. He is a very skilled pilot, but I (and I know he does as well) consider his "short" method to be more of a trick since it involves grass, a half ground loop, and a committed landing. I will often run my tires across a spot up to a half dozen times getting comfortable, and so my style of keeping up on the mains works well with that.

We have a number of practice spots across the bay from Homer, and 200 feet to land is average for just me and no wind, or me and a passenger with some wind. The shortest strip that I use is 300 feet, although I am careful with that spot for there to be OK wind and me feeling on my game.

I only have 150 or 200 hours in a Cub, so I can't intelligently compare how it does with more weight compared to the Husky. I try to fly light, and a big load into a short spot is me, a rear seat passenger, 30 gallons of gas and our hunting stuff. While I try to fly by the numbers, I just feel the wing and the air with a heavier load, and approach as feels right. The great thing about the Husky is that full flap balked landings are a snap.

George
 
George's description is good, but he's a tall guy. I'd add one thing for short guys like me, and something that differs from the Cub:

I carry a bit of forward slip on short/short final. This allows me (short guy) to see around the nose to the touchdown, and also some additional drag to facilitate working lift against drag. In the Cubs, I can pretty well see what's ahead right up to touchdown over the nose, but not in a Husky.

I think this is one thing a lot of Cub pilots don't like about the airplane, but, as George says, you can learn to work it, and power will fix anything the airplane starts to complain about.

MTV
 
kase said:
I've bought two 1996 Huskies in the last year for less than $86K and one was full GPS IFR.

What should a guy pay for a 1992 Husky, 1200 TTSN?

I doubt I would give more than $80K for that vintage. IFR, an -A upgrade, Ski gear, aft bag, -B tail spring , Bushwheels, etc, would add a bit.
Bottom line is there are several later model, as in -A and early B models available for $90 to $100K, well equipped, so the early models are taking a hit.
Just my opinion but I've shopped a bunch in the last year.
 
Back
Top