• 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?

This ones not to far from me so I may go look at it.

landed an A-1B at Lake Hood RNWY 13 in 36 feet
Click to expand...

Since they only need 36 ft to land with 15 kts wind I may be interested.

Thanks
 
Very early Huskies had some corrosion. Not an issue on later planes.

The advantage of an early plane is that it is likely lighter than later ones.

I see no reason to get a late model Husky, unless it has the new wing. I have been watching Trade A Plane and there are no used, new wing 180 Huskies for sale. I am not sure if a new wing 180 Husky (they started making them in the summer of 2005) has ever sold used.

George
 
Would you consider 92 a early model?
Click to expand...

Depends on whether or not it has corrosion. :)

I first had a late 80 something and it had a bunch of superficial corrosion. No corrosion on a 97 and any 2000 models.

George
 
Comparing apples to apples
A brand new 180 hp top cub by cubcrafters and a brand new 180 hp Husky
They cost about the same with comparable radios.

They seem to take off and land in about the same distance as far as i can tell. I am still a cub fan and will not sell my cubs.

I would choose the husky over the top cub unless instant parts availability was an issue then i might have to chose the top cub. The nice thing is they are both fantastic planes
 
Well, see--that's where you would be just wrong. The Top Cub uses hydrosorbs from Univair, but you can't buy em from Univair, cause this isn't a "Super Cub", its' a TOP CUB--a CC-18-180, and parts can only come from CC. You cannot legally use "Super Cub" parts on a Top Cub CC-18.

The point being that you have to order from CC, and wait for them to order from Univair or Wag, or Atlee, or..... equals no faster availability of parts.

And the Husky is faster. Frankly, the fit and finish is a lot better as well.

But, remember, the CC-18 is NOT a Super Cub.

MTV
 
You can not legally use PA-18 parts on a CC top cub????????

Good point I never thought about it that way but I suspect you are rite!!
 
You may only use Super Cub parts on the CC-18 that are specifically called out on the design specs for the CC-18.

Here's another example: There are NO ski approvals on the CC-18. Last I talked to the folks at CC, they weren't really too interested in getting that done.

Same with anything else you might want to strap on there.

Now, remember, I'm talking abou the Part 23 certified CC-18-180, here, not the "homebuilt" Super Cub clones that CC built as well. Those are considered to be Super Cubs by the FAA.

MTV
 
Of course with Aviat you need to wait for them to order the material to make the part. Then if they don't need it for one on the assembly line or rebuild and they remember you ordered it they might get it out to you....
 
George seems to have a 'get out of jail free' card when it comes to dealing with the AViat parts department. That's good. I could learn something from him, I'm sure.

I suppose now CC will have put themselves in the parts business (brokering stuff from Univair, AF, FADodge) but any 'broken' CC18's will be sitting while another Cub or even a Husky is back in the air working again.

I bet for alot of guys, the new wing Husky is the 'deal maker' over a CC-18, though. I gotta fly that thing and see how it does. It is sounding better all the time.

George, do you have VG's on that new wing? Also, how many degrees of full flaps? What is the empty weight?

Remember, I don't hate Husky's. DAVE

Thanks ahead of time. DAVE
 
Dave,

Just went through that experience with a CC-18. Not a huge delay, but longer than if it'd been a Cub.

MTV
 
Does anyone know of a new wing husky in new england? Last year the aviat site had a dealer listed in mass,this year it says contact the factory for all the local states.I wonder if the dealer went out of business.I like dave would like to get a demo flight.I want to see if the new wing husky flys as good as an average super cub,or better.I also want to see if it flys as good as a very light cub like the few that look magic.All cubs are not created equal,i see lot's of supercubs that don't perform like they were intended( in my opinion).I am becoming very intrigued with all of this talk about the new wing.I hope i can get a ride with a good husky pilot.
 
Phil,
Go to the Husky site http://husky.taildragger.info click on forum, then listserv mirror . Post a new thread and ask. This will send an email to everyone. Im sure there are some new wings out there some where. Just remember that even with the new wing the airplane flys different than a Cub. Technique is the most important function of performance. Make sure the demo pilot knows what he's doing.
 
George seems to have a 'get out of jail free' card when it comes to dealing with the AViat parts department. That's good. I could learn something from him, I'm sure.

George, do you have VG's on that new wing? Also, how many degrees of full flaps? What is the empty weight?
Click to expand...


After the thread on poor customer service with some Husky parts orders some months back, I called Stu Horn and discussed it with him. I also told him how one upset Husky owner chose not to buy a new Husky because of how a part order was handled. Stu was very concerned and was going to look carefully to see how how the process could be improved.

The key to getting parts is to place the order, get an expected ship date, and then follow-up on that date to make sure the order shipped. By the way, that is the same thing I do with any important order -- aviation or not. When we damaged a tail feather with a rock several years ago, during hunting season, Aviat pulled a part off of a Husky on the line for us. If the part isn't shipped as promised, I wouldn't hesitate to move up the chain of command at Aviat.

In defense of Aviat, they have an enormous job of keeping all these parts (but not too many) available for their production line and customers. Balancing availability and inventory costs obviously is a business issue, but Aviat seems to be doing better in recent years.

On the other questions -- no to VG's. They degraded the partial power
stall characteristics of the old wing (and that is how I make short landings), so we decided not to put them on. Full flaps is 30 degrees. Our plane on 31 inch Bushwheels with an MT, light fabric treatment, SL 40, Garmin 396, JPI, electric attitude indicator, light battery, light alternator, etc. weighs right at 1300 pounds. We hope to shave another 10-20 pounds by going to some carbon parts and moving the battery to save the weight of the battery cable.

George
 
George,

Have you spoke to the past Aviat dealers that were in Alaska? If not, I think you may need to! Ask them what are the problems they had with Aviat and see if it was consistent from dealer to dealer.
 
Have you spoke to the past Aviat dealers that were in Alaska? If not, I think you may need to! Ask them what are the problems they had with Aviat and see if it was consistent from dealer to dealer.
Click to expand...

I know Mark J and Cliff B well and consider them friends. We continue to work with Cliff at Floats AK. I am not discussing issues between Aviat and dealers, as I really don't know nor care about all the details. I am discussing my experiences as a user of the Husky. We have gotten the parts that we needed from them in a timely manner, although we do follow-up with calls to make sure things ship.

George
 
In AOPA magazine this month there is a write up on the new wing Husky.
From what they say it still takes more to take off and land than a Super Cub. It just climbs faster. flys faster and burns more fuel.
Up in Alaska we have a general rule, never fly 200 feet
AGL or lower. Thats where the CUB GUYS ARE!.
In my 1956 POA for the Super Cub, Take Off 200 feet, Landing 300 feet.
These figures are at gross weight and a 74 inch prop.
As far as parts go. I bought safety cables from CC years ago. they came to.me and no mounting bolt was the same size, half the nuts and bolt where used. I sent them back and since then I have used F. Atle Dodge as my parts supplier.
 
In AOPA magazine this month there is a write up on the new wing Husky.
From what they say it still takes more to take off and land than a Super Cub. It just climbs faster. flys faster and burns more fuel.
Up in Alaska we have a general rule, never fly 200 feet
AGL or lower. Thats where the CUB GUYS ARE!.
In my 1956 POA for the Super Cub, Take Off 200 feet, Landing 300 feet.
These figures are at gross weight and a 74 inch prop.
Click to expand...

The AOPA article was on the 200 HP Husky, not the 180 Husky. Factory numbers at 2000 pound gross weight have been takeoff in 200 feet and landing in 350 feet. They never changed the numbers for the new wing plane, which lands shorter. I didn't see any numbers in the AOPA article, other than the factory POH data.

That said, how could a 1300 pound empty weight Husky ever land as short as a 1050 pound Cub, assuming equivalent pilots and loads?

Fuel burn is a different matter. Assuming 105 knots @ 8 gallons in a 180 hp Husky on 31 inch Bushwheels, floats or skis versus 85 mph in a Cub at about 8 gallons. That is pretty straight forward math. The injected 200 is supposed to be 1 gallon per hour more efficient than the O-360.

People don't buy a Husky to win at Valdez. They do so to get a new plane, that is 20+ knots faster than a fixed pitch prop Cub, that it is equivalent or better than a Cub on floats and skis, that has 6+ hour range, that is stable enough to be flown on instruments, and has far better ailerons and ride in turbulence.

If you are traveling cross country, the range and speed differences are enormous. I left McCall, ID at 630a on a Saturday morning, was in Whitehorse and asleep over the FBO at 8p and in Homer by 1130a on Sunday. My wife has made multiple trips in a Husky from Prince George to Homer in a day. I can't make it thru the Trench in a Cub without refueling. It is no sweat in a Husky. Once I got stuck in Northway with fires, and filed IFR in the Husky and flew most of the way to Fairbanks on the gauges.

The Husky isn't a better plane than a Cub, it is just a different one.

George
 
The articel is on the 200 HP Husky. T.O. 265 feet, L.D. 398 feet.
In my Super Cub my numbers are half that.
Payload full fuel 380 Lbs., granted that is 5.6 hours. Must have good blatter or P bottle
Price as tested $212,426.00 Thats allot of cash for tube and fabric.
As far as speed and cross country goes. I was told way back when, when I started flying (1974). If you have to get there fast, don"t go by small plane.
As far as IFR goes. I want two engines or more, ice boots or hot wings,turbos turbo prop or jet power.
single engine IFR in my opinion is for learning unless absouletly neccessary.
We all have are opinions though.
 
GeorgeMandes said:
On the other questions -- no to VG's. They degraded the partial power
stall characteristics of the old wing (and that is how I make short landings), so we decided not to put them on.
George
Click to expand...

Thanks for your answers George. Please say more about the above answer. Thanks. DAVE
 
We put VG's on the old wing Husky. They reduced landing distance by about 25 feet. I did stalls power off with the VG's, and the plane just mushed. Power on stalls were uneventful, as long as the ball stayed centered.

When we got the new wing Husky, we ordered VG's for it. Before installing them, I decided to go fly the VG's on the old wing some more to get some base line data before installing them on the new wing. In addition to power on and off stalls, I did some with partial power simulating a power on short field, tail low wheel landing. On the first stall, the plane broke so hard to the left that it startled me. I repeated the same thing about a dozen times and got the same result. The break was so dramatic, it would have been a bad deal close to the ground. I sent my wife up to test it as well, and she got the same result.

Based on this testing, and the dramatically lower approach speed (and thus landing distance) with the new wing Husky, we decided to return the VG's.

George
 
As far as IFR goes. I want two engines or more, ice boots or hot wings,turbos turbo prop or jet power.
single engine IFR in my opinion is for learning unless absouletly neccessary.
Click to expand...

When FSS told me that I would be stuck in Northway for a week with low IFR conditions because of the fires, after spending one night there, I put this situation in the category of "absolutely necessary!" I had no approach plates or enroute charts. Northway FSS had no copy machine, so I borrowed their NOS charts, and copied them by hand on a few pieces of scrap paper.

I agree with your thoughts on little plane IFR in the mountains. Most of my least two weeks has been at FL 430 and 450.

George
 
I would have to absolutely concur with Georges assessment of the old wing with VGs. We've had two old wing airplanes this year, one with and one without VGs. I much preferred the no VG airplane. Loved them on my Cub !!!
 
The VG thing is something that a lot of folks seem to take an all or nothing approach. They tend to think VG's are God's gift to aviation, or they don't like them.

At least in my experience, VG's tend to have very different effects on different makes and models of planes.

The Cub really likes VG's. The Scout REALLY likes VG's. My Cessna 170 is pretty much take it or leave it. I wouldn't do it again to that airplane. No negative effects really, just not much on the plus side either.

Of course, it also depends on what you are doing with the plane as well.

MTV
 
GeorgeMandes said:
On the first stall, the plane broke so hard to the left that it startled me. George
Click to expand...

It sure seems like I'm picking on you George. Sorry.

What does this left-breaking stall tendencey mean to you? Just guessing, my first thought is of a flying surface alignment anomoly, not a problem with the VG's.

I'm not a simplistic-minded believer of all fast-talking VG salesman. But, I have found the VG-equipped "old"-wing A-1B to be more "solid" or "tight" on short final when at slow-speed and/or grossed-out than the un-VG-equipped version. My customers confer with me. So far, they have wanted VG's on 3 Husky's now, and whined when I couldn't get a set installed before hunting season last year.

However, in the interest of learning a thing or 2 or three, George and Mike, would you say more? Would you also say more about the 'new' wing bird? I read an earlier post from you of the niceties of the new wing, but I'd like to hear more if you have it.

Thanks.

PS. MIke, slow and at the edge (That's what I'm doing with the plane) :D
 
left-breaking stall tendencey

Dave Calkins said:
What does this left-breaking stall tendencey mean to you? not a problem with the VG's.
:D
Click to expand...

for what its worth....

assuming a strait plane....unginked...
make sure the fuselage, and and wing dihedral are equal,
I.E. that with the fuselage leveled left to right, that each wing has same angle up...not sure how to say it... but each wing on a cub points up about 1.1..1.2 degrees up with the fuselage level..

and THEN.... make sure the "ball" is centered, with the fuslage leveled like this...

this took care of THIS TYPE problem on some cubs that were carelessly rigged...

wish i could explain this better..........

mike
 
What does this left-breaking stall tendencey mean to you? Just guessing, my first thought is of a flying surface alignment anomoly, not a problem with the VG's.

I'm not a simplistic-minded believer of all fast-talking VG salesman. But, I have found the VG-equipped "old"-wing A-1B to be more "solid" or "tight" on short final when at slow-speed and/or grossed-out than the un-VG-equipped version. My customers confer with me. So far, they have wanted VG's on 3 Husky's now, and whined when I couldn't get a set installed before hunting season last year.

However, in the interest of learning a thing or 2 or three, George and Mike, would you say more? Would you also say more about the 'new' wing bird? I read an earlier post from you of the niceties of the new wing, but I'd like to hear more if you have it.
Click to expand...


I am not anti VG. I had them on two Super Cubs. On a Seneca, the VG's provided better elevator authority in the flare, and for several years I flew a VG equipped Baron out of a 2,500 foot strip.

On the old wing Husky, it needed 200 feet to take off and 350 feet to land. As I said previously, VG's took 25 feet off the landing distance. Given how out of balance the takeoff versus landing performance was, I was delighted to get the 25 foot benefit of the VG's.

I am embarrassed to say that while I did power on and off stalls after installing the VG's on the old wing Husky, I had never tested partial power stalls. When I did that, as I prepared to install VG's on the new wing Husky, I was shocked to learn that this generally docile plane had a mean streak ready to rear its head at a bad moment.

I brought my finding on the Husky List, and other folks confirmed it as well, with their own testing. Until I found this in our testing, I had never known about this flight characteristic with the VG's on the Husky, and you can imagine they didn't feature it in their advertising. As to rigging, our old wing Husky flew in trim, so I don't suspect rigging was the cause. If it were rigging, the same finding would not likely be reported by others as well.

I discussed this with the folks down at Fighter Combat International, when we were doing recurrent training in the Extra 300, and they think that the VG's allowed the stall to occur in a deeper stall, and thus the break. That is above my pay grade, but I know what I experienced and what others have also reported.

I don't have good data on the new wing Husky and VG's, except on one new wing plane that was deemed unsafe with VG's, but ultimately there was a rigging issue. I do note that Bob Hoff, a long time Husky dealer does not want to install VG's. Thomas Dietrich, who is Mr Husky in Switzerland, and constantly innovating mods for the Husky, doesn't use them on his "Snowbird," that he lands on skis up high in the Alps.

As far as your customer opinions, when you can't get into places without a fright, that are casual in a Cub, you want any advantage possible. I would ask them how thorough the flight testing they did was after installation? When I tested the VG's, and saw that the plane wouldn't break power off, just mush down, I thought we were good to go.

This is hard for me to say, because I like the Husky so much, but the old wing Husky is not a great Bush wheel plane. While it really performs on floats and skis, it is a fright going into short places. That is the reason we gave up and decided to build a Cub. However, the new wing Husky is a whole different plane, and brings the landing distance down to 200 feet - or equivalent to takeoff distance.

I don't believe Aviat realized what they were going to get beyond increasing the descent rate with flaps and improving the ailerons by increasing the roll rate and reducing adverse yaw. Nobody from the dealer or the factory told us about the reduction in approach speed (about 10 mph) and it was a great surprise when we figured it out. At first, we thought it was a fluke, but then my wife and I started consistently getting the short landings.

The real answer to your customers, is if they want a wheel plane to go into the shortest places, is get a new wing Husky or just stick with a Cub. If the plane will mostly be used on floats and skis, and occasional Bushwheel use, or the landing distances aren't so critical, then the old wing is fine. As to VG's, tell them to decide whether 25 feet on landing is important enough for them to roll it over on a partial power stall close to the ground.

George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WhiskeyMike
Husky MT prop
Replies
8
Views
4K
Gary Fields
G
B
Husky Shock Cords
Replies
7
Views
2K
Fortysix12
F
K
Husky A-1 180 hp
4 5 6
Replies
174
Views
45K
Cimarron
C
L
Top cub v. Husky
4 5 6
Replies
161
Views
50K
Jon B.
Jon B.
sj
Fun Ferry Flight in a New Husky A1C
Replies
14
Views
6K
Cub junkie
Cub junkie
Back
Top