Top cub v. Husky
- Thread starter Lasater
- Start date
sj
Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
Since only a few of us are working pilots or "competition" pilots (other than for fun), and generally speaking ANY plane that can get in and out in around 500' or less is more than adequate for the kinds of places we will go, there are a LOT of planes out there that will do that. I think this is where personal preference and remaining mission ideas must be taken into account.
My thoughts are:
1. I prefer the lighter control pressures of the top cub to the husky.
2. With a CS prop, I am not too far behind the husky, but still not that fast.
3. If I wanted an IFR certified plane that would also serve as a fool around plane I might pick a husky.
4. If I had ambulatory issues, I might look to a scout since they seem to be easier to get in and out of than the husky/cub.
5. If I was tall (which I am) I would find the husky compartment up front tight.
6. If I was fat (which I could be) I'd like a widebody.
7. If I had kids, a dog, etc, I might look at a Maule or a C-180.
8. I loved my beater cub, and I beat my fancy cub. I have had just as much fun in beater cubs as fancy ones, but while maybe falsely placed, newer equipment all around can inspire some confidence that you might not have with older equipment.
9. If you plan on switching between amphibs and wheels, the cub is much easier than the husky and takes a lot less time.
10. If I never flew more than in the local area, I would definitely look at a cub instead of the other options because you don't need them if you are just fooling around.
11. If I had to go a long way often, I would either consider a faster plane like the husky/maule, or two planes - a mooney and a cub (sorry Jeff, a Commanche and a cub) or something like that.
12. The cub is very simple and fun to fly. Most have minimal panels. If you want a lot of gadgets to entertain you on your flight, the Husky might be a good choice - although the new cubs are pretty gadget heavy.
Finally, what do you want? If you want a Harley you probably won't be satisfied with a Gold Wing even though it is cheaper and smoother on the road, because, well, you want a Harley. I think the cub / husky / maule / scout / blah blah blah argument really comes down to personal preference - if you are not in a situation where you need some kind of exacting performance in either the fast end, or the slow end.
I await my crucifixion.
sj
My thoughts are:
1. I prefer the lighter control pressures of the top cub to the husky.
2. With a CS prop, I am not too far behind the husky, but still not that fast.
3. If I wanted an IFR certified plane that would also serve as a fool around plane I might pick a husky.
4. If I had ambulatory issues, I might look to a scout since they seem to be easier to get in and out of than the husky/cub.
5. If I was tall (which I am) I would find the husky compartment up front tight.
6. If I was fat (which I could be) I'd like a widebody.
7. If I had kids, a dog, etc, I might look at a Maule or a C-180.
8. I loved my beater cub, and I beat my fancy cub. I have had just as much fun in beater cubs as fancy ones, but while maybe falsely placed, newer equipment all around can inspire some confidence that you might not have with older equipment.
9. If you plan on switching between amphibs and wheels, the cub is much easier than the husky and takes a lot less time.
10. If I never flew more than in the local area, I would definitely look at a cub instead of the other options because you don't need them if you are just fooling around.
11. If I had to go a long way often, I would either consider a faster plane like the husky/maule, or two planes - a mooney and a cub (sorry Jeff, a Commanche and a cub) or something like that.
12. The cub is very simple and fun to fly. Most have minimal panels. If you want a lot of gadgets to entertain you on your flight, the Husky might be a good choice - although the new cubs are pretty gadget heavy.
Finally, what do you want? If you want a Harley you probably won't be satisfied with a Gold Wing even though it is cheaper and smoother on the road, because, well, you want a Harley. I think the cub / husky / maule / scout / blah blah blah argument really comes down to personal preference - if you are not in a situation where you need some kind of exacting performance in either the fast end, or the slow end.
I await my crucifixion.
sj
ground loop
Registered User
Anchorage
Erik,
I believe MTV personally owns a 170; therefore, the cool can still be reasonably assumed. The husky is just his work uniform, kinda like a McDonald's hat!
The other guys super sam mentiones aren't cool, they are filthy rich!
Alex,
Does your wife know that you called her cold on the world wide web?
I believe MTV personally owns a 170; therefore, the cool can still be reasonably assumed. The husky is just his work uniform, kinda like a McDonald's hat!
The other guys super sam mentiones aren't cool, they are filthy rich!Alex,
Does your wife know that you called her cold on the world wide web?
One plus I see with the Husky is you can plant them on Baumann floats. If I was to buy (brand new) floats and had to choose between the Baumann's and the Whips' for a 172 or Cub/Husky/Scout, I'd have to go with Baumann. I'm building a Widebody cub with all the provisions for the Whip amphibs including the up-gross applicable only to whip floats. That said I'm hoping there will be a Baumann option by the time I'm completed.
Alex Clark
Registered User
Life Long Alaskan
Loop,
The message said "used to be married to" As in ex-wife. I will type slower the next time.
If you see a bank of ice fog heading your way, you will know she is approaching your A.O.
She didn't like my Harleys either back when I went through my pre-midlife crisis. Satan get thee behind me....
Current spouse is a rootin, tootin, machine gun shootin, looks good while parachutin, fightin, fun loving, froggirl, flyer gal. That I met on a military shooting range.....
The message said "used to be married to" As in ex-wife. I will type slower the next time.
If you see a bank of ice fog heading your way, you will know she is approaching your A.O.
She didn't like my Harleys either back when I went through my pre-midlife crisis. Satan get thee behind me....
Current spouse is a rootin, tootin, machine gun shootin, looks good while parachutin, fightin, fun loving, froggirl, flyer gal. That I met on a military shooting range.....
Top Cub v. Husky
Will a 6'3" pilot fit in a Husky? If the front seat is fixed, how do you adjust for different size pilots?
A supercub is never comfortable after a few hours, but I know you can stick a couple of six footers in there. Is that impossible in the Husky?
Will a 6'3" pilot fit in a Husky? If the front seat is fixed, how do you adjust for different size pilots?
A supercub is never comfortable after a few hours, but I know you can stick a couple of six footers in there. Is that impossible in the Husky?
mvivion
FOUNDER
Bozeman,MT
Only adjustment in the Husky seat is cushions. Oregon Aero makes all thicknesses of them, and even the thin ones are great to sit on for a long time.
I used to know a fellow who was an easy 6 foot 8, lanky, wore VERY eastern Montana cowboy boots (major heels) and, of course his hat. His point of pride was that he didn't like to remove the hat when he got in and out of the Cub. Most limber guy I've ever met.
If you are much over 6 foot 4, I'd say the Husky is gonna be tight, even with thin cushions. Course, I know Cub guys who've had their front seats modified, which you'll never get approved again either.
The Husky is about three or four inches wider than the Cub. Course, the Cubbers are now copying the Husky by introducing the wide body fuselage for the Cub
.
That oughta get em off the H-D vs Honda thing, eh Steve?
MTV
I used to know a fellow who was an easy 6 foot 8, lanky, wore VERY eastern Montana cowboy boots (major heels) and, of course his hat. His point of pride was that he didn't like to remove the hat when he got in and out of the Cub. Most limber guy I've ever met.
If you are much over 6 foot 4, I'd say the Husky is gonna be tight, even with thin cushions. Course, I know Cub guys who've had their front seats modified, which you'll never get approved again either.
The Husky is about three or four inches wider than the Cub. Course, the Cubbers are now copying the Husky by introducing the wide body fuselage for the Cub
. That oughta get em off the H-D vs Honda thing, eh Steve?
MTV
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Something's wrong with MY tape measure, too.
Maybe something's wrong with the Cub, It doesn't know it's supposed to be narrower, so it's just sits there being 1/2" WIDER than the HUSKY.
Thanks Diggler.
On another note, how come everybody seems to think that a normal Cub weighs 1250 pounds these days. Maybe CC's do, Maybe the whoopdee-equipped ones do, but the good old Cubs are still under 1200 pounds. And they fly better for it!!! Yeah, I'm nitpicking!
If 500 feet is acceptable, Steve is right, lots of airplanes will do that. Everything is a trade-off. but lightwieght helps you get in and out of MUCH shorter than that!!
Don't forget that workmanship is a variable in the manufacturing of these aircraft. Built in factories, 9 to 5, Monday mornings. Hell, MONDAYS all day! Plus, you get the cookie-cutter, save a buck, gloss it over, gee it looks shiny and new today model. What about 3 years from today?
Anyone who wants a nice airplane can have exactly what he wants if he plans ahead about 4 months. Lots of custom builders will give you what you want without the fluff, and glossy, full-page aids. And without the heap of bull from the big-boy manufacturers. I'm sure the big boys are reading this thread. You know who you are. Tell us the truth!! You probably believe your own salesmanship by now, eh?
Sorry, somebody had to say it.
Steve, you have a wonderful web site!!! Remember how this started. It was really small-town, with a very knowledgeable few giving true, real advice. It's grown up, and seems like everything that grows up goes commercial. Oh, well.
Some will disagree with me. DAVE
Maybe something's wrong with the Cub, It doesn't know it's supposed to be narrower, so it's just sits there being 1/2" WIDER than the HUSKY.
Thanks Diggler.
On another note, how come everybody seems to think that a normal Cub weighs 1250 pounds these days. Maybe CC's do, Maybe the whoopdee-equipped ones do, but the good old Cubs are still under 1200 pounds. And they fly better for it!!! Yeah, I'm nitpicking!
If 500 feet is acceptable, Steve is right, lots of airplanes will do that. Everything is a trade-off. but lightwieght helps you get in and out of MUCH shorter than that!!
Don't forget that workmanship is a variable in the manufacturing of these aircraft. Built in factories, 9 to 5, Monday mornings. Hell, MONDAYS all day! Plus, you get the cookie-cutter, save a buck, gloss it over, gee it looks shiny and new today model. What about 3 years from today?
Anyone who wants a nice airplane can have exactly what he wants if he plans ahead about 4 months. Lots of custom builders will give you what you want without the fluff, and glossy, full-page aids. And without the heap of bull from the big-boy manufacturers. I'm sure the big boys are reading this thread. You know who you are. Tell us the truth!! You probably believe your own salesmanship by now, eh?
Sorry, somebody had to say it.
Steve, you have a wonderful web site!!! Remember how this started. It was really small-town, with a very knowledgeable few giving true, real advice. It's grown up, and seems like everything that grows up goes commercial. Oh, well.
Some will disagree with me. DAVE
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Steve, everyone here will say that you're doing a bang-up job.
No one will say that you have not performed well, nor that you have done less than provide a great forum and resource for those interested in the subject of Cub.
Some will believe that a CC Cub is all there is. Others will realize that Aviat are building Husky's. Still others will accept nothing less than a custom build from a small shop who live to please only the customer whose baby will emerge from the hangar door at the "end of the winter".
My point is that the big manufacturer goes on to tell everyone that you gotta have it or you ain't spit.
Many unlearned, naive, or underexposed will buy that story. And be happy with what they have. That's fine.
Plenty of smaller builders can make it nicer, for less money, and assemble it lovingly so that it looks good and operates better, for longer. That's the point.
If the topic is T-Cub VS. Av-Husky, why bother answering, I guess.
DAVE
No one will say that you have not performed well, nor that you have done less than provide a great forum and resource for those interested in the subject of Cub.
Some will believe that a CC Cub is all there is. Others will realize that Aviat are building Husky's. Still others will accept nothing less than a custom build from a small shop who live to please only the customer whose baby will emerge from the hangar door at the "end of the winter".
My point is that the big manufacturer goes on to tell everyone that you gotta have it or you ain't spit.
Many unlearned, naive, or underexposed will buy that story. And be happy with what they have. That's fine.
Plenty of smaller builders can make it nicer, for less money, and assemble it lovingly so that it looks good and operates better, for longer. That's the point.
If the topic is T-Cub VS. Av-Husky, why bother answering, I guess.
DAVE
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Steve, believe the praise!
You have provided both a wonderful forum and added a balanced and insightful dialogue to the arguments.
I'd like to let these statements stand alone. Thank You. DAVE
You have provided both a wonderful forum and added a balanced and insightful dialogue to the arguments.
I'd like to let these statements stand alone. Thank You. DAVE
bob turner
Registered User
While we are all patting Steve on the back: It is a great site! I get my questions answered regularly, with folks who know what they are talking about. That means that everybody is responsible for the success here!
Do I wish I could find a site like this for my Decathlon? You bet! They have a site, but nobody participates! Same with the J-3 sites - nobody home. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling failure. Nobody goes there because nobody goes there. Sounds like an out-of-date singles bar!
I found a couple for my model trains - great fun, but still not as good as this! And I am looking for one with lawyers, but they aren't interested in theory, just in fees!
So, just keep on doing whatever we are doing. It is fun, and rarely ends up in true acrimony. As always, just my opinion.
Do I wish I could find a site like this for my Decathlon? You bet! They have a site, but nobody participates! Same with the J-3 sites - nobody home. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling failure. Nobody goes there because nobody goes there. Sounds like an out-of-date singles bar!
I found a couple for my model trains - great fun, but still not as good as this! And I am looking for one with lawyers, but they aren't interested in theory, just in fees!
So, just keep on doing whatever we are doing. It is fun, and rarely ends up in true acrimony. As always, just my opinion.
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Sam, my exposure to the big boys comes from the glossy full-page ads, from the salesmen at the tradeshows, and from the salesmen at the dealerships.
When the big boys have their salesman shoes and hats on, they spew plenty of "this is the only way to have it".
"factual example"? Maybe.
This is my opinion. Take it or leave it.
Thanks DAVE
When the big boys have their salesman shoes and hats on, they spew plenty of "this is the only way to have it".
"factual example"? Maybe.
This is my opinion. Take it or leave it.
Thanks DAVE
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
By-the-way, Sam.
How are the steel parts on your '98 Husky holding up?
Any corrosion coming up through the paint on your struts, jury's, gear legs, stab braces? Hopefully the fuse frame is holding up well.
I've got lots of lists of flaws from the early Husky's.
I disagree with some of what comes off the line in WA, too.
..........if you're lucky, you get what you pay for.
Sorry, no one seems to want to talk about this stuff.
I'll end up looking like a jerk for bringing it up. I guess I just don't care so much what everyone thinks as much as I used to.
Sorry. :roll:
How are the steel parts on your '98 Husky holding up?
Any corrosion coming up through the paint on your struts, jury's, gear legs, stab braces? Hopefully the fuse frame is holding up well.
I've got lots of lists of flaws from the early Husky's.
I disagree with some of what comes off the line in WA, too.
..........if you're lucky, you get what you pay for.
Sorry, no one seems to want to talk about this stuff.
I'll end up looking like a jerk for bringing it up. I guess I just don't care so much what everyone thinks as much as I used to.
Sorry. :roll:
David M. Calkins said:
Just perfect....thanks for asking. As to faults, I can't think of a product made today that doesn't have room for improvement. Could that be why there are so many mods available for Super Cubs and the like? The Husky isn't a perfect machine, nor is the Cub, but it's the right machine for me and that's what matters most.....to me.
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
Sam, all the 5 year old Husky's in this area have pitting coming through the paint on steel parts.
Mostly jury struts, struts, and tail-braces. These are not coming through simply from rock-chip, etc. The ones I'm talking about seem to be coming right up through the paint.
While we're on the subject: While removing a piece of duct tape from a jury strut (gun scabbard protection duct-tape ) one of my customers pulled a bunch of paint off with the tape. This revealed nice shiny metal with the mill numbers still on it. NOT GOOD!
I talked to a guy in the Aviat paint shop a couple of weeks ago. He said that all the steel pieces on a Husky that get painted are bead-blasted first nowadays. Good on 'ya, Aviat!!!! That's the way it should have been done back when my customers' a/c was new...in the year.....2000.
Mostly jury struts, struts, and tail-braces. These are not coming through simply from rock-chip, etc. The ones I'm talking about seem to be coming right up through the paint.
While we're on the subject: While removing a piece of duct tape from a jury strut (gun scabbard protection duct-tape
) one of my customers pulled a bunch of paint off with the tape. This revealed nice shiny metal with the mill numbers still on it. NOT GOOD!I talked to a guy in the Aviat paint shop a couple of weeks ago. He said that all the steel pieces on a Husky that get painted are bead-blasted first nowadays. Good on 'ya, Aviat!!!! That's the way it should have been done back when my customers' a/c was new...in the year.....2000.
Steve Pierce
BENEFACTOR
Graham, TX
A friend of mine just sold his 1998 A1A with about 800 hrs. that he bought new and picked up in Afton. I was fortunate enough to do all the maintenance on it except transponder checks. The only rust I ever found was a spot right under the battery where the tube had been scratched. I did take the inspection cover off the flap bellcrank and pull a big chunk of paint off. I attribute that to nitrate/butyrate process because I have never seen nitrate stick to polyester fabric. I thought it was a well built/thought out airplane. Easy to maintain, fun to fly and only required preventive maintenance. I didn't like the baggage compartment, cost and wait time on parts nor that attitude I got from the factory. Over all I thought it was a great airplane for the mission. It is gone now and a new 180 hp Maule is on order with an MT prop and all the BS left out to make it as light as possible. Cylinders going to LyCon for flow matching and Leading Edge Exhaust going on if I can make it fit the airframe. Mission- take the wife and lots of stuff (big double back door) comfortably in a side by side configuration with the similar performance of the Husky. 8)
sj
Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
Dave,
I understand your points about various rebuilders vs new aircraft. Some folks just want new (sometime just to score big on first year depreciation). I probably won't every know what buying a "brand new" plane is like, but I get to fly a few of them once in a while (not all cubs) and that new car smell is hard to resist.
Folks new to cubs (or any aircraft for that matter) might have trouble determining what old cub to buy, and what rebuild shop will really put out a decent product for them. There are lots of great rebuilders all around the country, and there are some really crappy ones too. The "newbie" sometimes does not have the experience, possibly the patience, and the knowledge to ascertain which shop is credible or not and opts to spend the extra $$$ on the "sure thing" (which may not be as high a quality as you have pointed out, but it is somewhat consistent).
My point here is that new aircraft is the path of least resistance. Unlike buying a 50 year old airplane (even a rebuilt one) you have the assumption (hopefully true) that everything is brand new and everything works. It has not been wrecked. The engine has zero time on it, etc, etc. This brings great comfort to some people. Also, financing, depreciation, etc, all cater to new planes. It is scary how big of an airplane payment I would qualify for on a new cessna. I would be living alone in a cardboard box if I bought one, at least Dana would move me there.
SO, the task then is education. How do you educate people on the process of selecting, following up with, and understanding the rebuild process who has never gone through it? A friend here on the site just recently picked up his newly rebuilt cub. It is very nice, but it took at least half again as long as it was supposed to, and a few things did not work when he got it. Minor things, but still, it ain't new.
sj
I understand your points about various rebuilders vs new aircraft. Some folks just want new (sometime just to score big on first year depreciation). I probably won't every know what buying a "brand new" plane is like, but I get to fly a few of them once in a while (not all cubs) and that new car smell is hard to resist.
Folks new to cubs (or any aircraft for that matter) might have trouble determining what old cub to buy, and what rebuild shop will really put out a decent product for them. There are lots of great rebuilders all around the country, and there are some really crappy ones too. The "newbie" sometimes does not have the experience, possibly the patience, and the knowledge to ascertain which shop is credible or not and opts to spend the extra $$$ on the "sure thing" (which may not be as high a quality as you have pointed out, but it is somewhat consistent).
My point here is that new aircraft is the path of least resistance. Unlike buying a 50 year old airplane (even a rebuilt one) you have the assumption (hopefully true) that everything is brand new and everything works. It has not been wrecked. The engine has zero time on it, etc, etc. This brings great comfort to some people. Also, financing, depreciation, etc, all cater to new planes. It is scary how big of an airplane payment I would qualify for on a new cessna. I would be living alone in a cardboard box if I bought one, at least Dana would move me there.
SO, the task then is education. How do you educate people on the process of selecting, following up with, and understanding the rebuild process who has never gone through it? A friend here on the site just recently picked up his newly rebuilt cub. It is very nice, but it took at least half again as long as it was supposed to, and a few things did not work when he got it. Minor things, but still, it ain't new.
sj
Do it Yourself!
Then there's always the option of buying a beater and restoring it yourself under the watchful eye of a trusted IA. Log the time toward your A&P if you're so inclined. There's no better way to know your own airplane inside and out, and you'll know just what was put into it at the end of the process.
I know several people who have gone this route with very satisfying results, and a great deal of pride in knowing they did it themselves.
Then there's always the option of buying a beater and restoring it yourself under the watchful eye of a trusted IA. Log the time toward your A&P if you're so inclined. There's no better way to know your own airplane inside and out, and you'll know just what was put into it at the end of the process.
I know several people who have gone this route with very satisfying results, and a great deal of pride in knowing they did it themselves.
mvivion
FOUNDER
Bozeman,MT
Dave,
"Why does everyone think a standard Cub should weigh 1250 pounds now?" I don't. Most of em I see W/B for weigh over 1300. And that's not just govmint airplanes, either. I can point out a LARGE number of those, and I'd argue there are a whole lot more of those around than there are airplanes that weigh less than 1200. Maybe the air is just heavier here.
We've not had any issues with corrosion on Huskys, at least no worse than any other rag and tube airplane. The first one we bought in 1989 is looking a little ratty now, but wearing original fabric and paint (we don't own it any more) and has lived outside its whole life. Looked at it a while back and it doesn't look any worse than any other airplane of that vintage.
You are absolutely correct that a single person shop can (if they take the time and care) do a much better job of rebuilding than any factory could. The owner will have to pay for it, though, unless the mechanic wants to eat a WHOLE lot of time.
The airplanes I've seen go through a TRUE complete rebuild still had a lot of old parts in them, and wound up costing almost as much as a new airplane.
I can tell you that the fabric work that comes out of both CC and Aviat is superb, in my opinion.
MTV
"Why does everyone think a standard Cub should weigh 1250 pounds now?" I don't. Most of em I see W/B for weigh over 1300. And that's not just govmint airplanes, either. I can point out a LARGE number of those, and I'd argue there are a whole lot more of those around than there are airplanes that weigh less than 1200. Maybe the air is just heavier here.
We've not had any issues with corrosion on Huskys, at least no worse than any other rag and tube airplane. The first one we bought in 1989 is looking a little ratty now, but wearing original fabric and paint (we don't own it any more) and has lived outside its whole life. Looked at it a while back and it doesn't look any worse than any other airplane of that vintage.
You are absolutely correct that a single person shop can (if they take the time and care) do a much better job of rebuilding than any factory could. The owner will have to pay for it, though, unless the mechanic wants to eat a WHOLE lot of time.
The airplanes I've seen go through a TRUE complete rebuild still had a lot of old parts in them, and wound up costing almost as much as a new airplane.
I can tell you that the fabric work that comes out of both CC and Aviat is superb, in my opinion.
MTV
