Top cub v. Husky

[browser]

Re: Super Cub vs Husky

My thought is speed is nice but slow speed handling is better .It took me 20 minutes longer to get to the mountvin strip in Idaho than a husky but I knew I could get in and out,My 180hp cub burns 7.2gph @3000ft cruise 103mph I have never heard of a husky using 5;5 to 6.1gph as a former poster stated.

Mikeo,

I didn't see the original message claiming this fuel burn in the Husky, but I can confirm it. I routinely fly around at 15.5" MAP, and 2000 RPM, this setting at 6000' MSL results in a fuel burn of 5.5 GPH. I usually am indicating between 80-90 MPH. This is with just myself in the airplane, and nothing more than half tanks. Anything more will require more power, and subsequently more fuel burn.

Brian

 

[mvivion]

Man,

I'd like to hear the technique to get a 180 Cub to fly at 103 mph and burn 7.2 gph. I've rarely met a 150 cub that could get fuel burn down to that range, and not anywhere near that speed. So, do you have a 76 pitch prop? How did you determine fuel burn: fuel flow meter, or pouring gas in before and after?

The Husky will run all day, on big tires (as in Bushwheels) at 100 knots and burning 7.4 to 7.6 gph. If you want to run it oversquare, which is Matt's favorite, you can easily get that down to well under 7 gph, per a calibrated and consistently accurate fuel flow meter, verified by filling the tanks before and after. Note that I quoted KNOTS, as opposed to mph. At 1950 and 21 inches today, we were burning 6.5 gph, and making 100 knots, on 29 inch tires. With witness.

Note also that tach time vs actual flight time makes a difference in fuel calculations. I'm using actual time, NOT tach time. Tach time can be substantially less than hours on a clock, particularly at low power settings. Hours is hours, though, and tach time is irrelevant, except when you're doing maintenance. Sometimes it's hard to compare apples to apples on these deals, which is the only point of my previious questions.

I have flown one Top Cub, and they are a nice airplane. They perform well. Like most Cubs, they are a good bit easier to land short than a Husky. Can you land a Husky about as short, at comparable weights? Yep--with a lot of focus and practice on the part of the Husky pilot. The Husky is harder to put into a tight spot, no doubt.

On the other hand, the takeoffs are pretty close to the same on wheels. On floats, the takeoffs all go to the Husky, assuming an experienced driver in both. On skis, the takeoffs go to the Husky, no experience required :roll: .

In climb, the Husky will beat the 180 Cub most every time, especially at high DA. In cruise, the Husky is faster. About 20 mph faster, with less fuel flow. If you want to get to max conserve, the Husky is maybe 10 to 15 mph faster, with substantially lower fuel flow. Gas was going for $4.25 today.

I like fast and low fuel flows better all the time.

MTV

 

[Yard Dart]

Constant speed vs fixed pitch Gee i wonder which one would perform better?DAh

 

[browser]

Mike,

My comments about the 5.5 gph apply to my Husky. I was flying today with an M5 235, and a C-150/150. We shot a lot of approaches in to some fun country. Nothing better than spending a day in the back country with a few other planes. I was interested to note that I was considerably faster than the 150/150. I didn't have a shot at keeping up with the Maule.

I have noted that a lot of people are advocating flying a 55 mph approach in the Husky. Is this your technique as well? I find myself coming in a little slower than that. I generally approach at 50-52, and give the plane just a shot of power prior to touchdown to arrest the sink rate. I am curious to hear your technique.


Brian

 

[mvivion]

Diggler:

Finally, the data:

Here are measurements between a Cub (not a Top Cub, don't have access to one of those at the moment) and a Husky, cabin wise.

The shoulder width is essentially window to window, in other words, above the sill, at approximately shoulder width.

The "Waist width" is between the left side panel, and the door, same height on both sides.

The "Hip Width" is the width at the top of the seat bottom cushion, in other words, where one's butt is. Maybe I shoulda called it "Butt Width".

Shoulder Width Waist Width Hip Width


Super Cub 26 inches 24.5 inches 24.5 inches


Husky 27.5 inches 25 inches 26 inches

So, the Husky is a tad wider inside, but not by much. Surprisingly enough, though, as noted before, a lot of people have the impression that the Husky is substantially wider.

MTV

 

[Dave Calkins]

Mike. My tape measure didn't reveal the numbers you just posted.

I'll go out and do it again. I believe I measured inside of throttle cover to inside edge of door.

I'm surprised, to say the least. I'll go check it out again. DAVE

 

[Dave Calkins]

Mike, geez, I hate to start another rant, there are others here who make their living at it.

Hips (from inside of door to inside of pitch trim wheel): 24 inches, at best!

Waist (why bother, it's limited by the structure that limits the "Hip" measurement--the pitch trim wheel and the door=24inches): 25.5

Elbow (a new measurement, lets say between the inside of the throttle cover and the inside of the door): 24.5

Shoulder (inside edges of the framing and support from left hand window frame to right hand door window vertical supports): 26.5

Shoulder (glass to glass, not taking the window frame structure into account): 27

Again, the big limiting factors to the available room seem to be: 1. the pitchtrim wheel and the door opposite it. 2. the throttle cover piece and the door opposite it.

These two areas give you 24 inches and 24.5 inches, respectively. That's the "real" number.

I can give credit for "feeling" roomy to the window to window width of 27 inches. That's nice.

Not Ranting. "Correcting".

Thanks, DAVE I'll check a Cub in a couple hours.

180's are like 40 inches, 52.5 if you have bubble windows.

 

[Dave Calkins]

18-125 18A-135 18-150(latemodel) Husky

Hips: 24.5 25.25 25 24

Waist: 25 25.5 25.5 25.5

Elbow: 25.5 25.25 26.5 24.5

Shoulder: 26.5 26.25 26.75 26.5

Shoulder,
Glass-Glass: 27.5 27 27.25 27

I checked 3 different Cubs 'cause I knew there'd be a bit of difference. All the birds have had at least one rebuild, the late-model at least one recover. They're all 150HP or better-powered. 2 have vinyl-covered interiors, one is powder-coated alum. The A-135 had the Carb Heat control and Mag switch panel moved from the left-hand side panel to the instrument panel, so it got more room at the hips. I figure I got a decent cross-section of the -18 family. I only measured 1 Husky, a 2000 A-1B..

Oh.......Stanley "LeverLock" 12 footer.

Like I said, I was surprised when I first read Mike's measurements and statement this morning.

I am not a Husky hater! DAVE

 

[LloydFrye]

widths

I've been looking for the same measurements for the wide body SC (yeah 4" wider, but all over?) and the PA-12.

Would appreciate it, if someone has the time. Thanks

 

[mvivion]

Dave,

That may be true, if you measure from the pitch trim wheel to the door. Personally, my ass doesn't hang that far over the edge of the seat, so I simply measured from side wall to side wall at the hip location.

Sorry, but those are the measurements I came up with. Probably the one that folks "notice" the most, is the most irrelevant: window to window.

I'm not defending, just stating, and the Cub I measured isn't any different than a hundred others out there.

But, if you want to measure from the inboard tip of the throttle to the inboard end of the door handle, the answer is I don't know, nor do I care.

The measurements I took are with a genuine Craftsman (I know, not MAC) tape measure.

I can't help you more than that.

And, frankly, who gives a rip?

Other than Diggler, that is....

MTV

 

[Dave Calkins]

....and me. Mostly because I hate a lie.

DAVE

 

[Dave Calkins]

...or anything that could be construed. I like things clearly stated.

DAVE.....not claiming to clearly state ANYTHING.

 

[flagold]

"I'd be interested in the "off the books techniques to wring max range out of a Husky. Are they secret?"

TJ: sorry, I haven't been paying attention over here -- what Mike said above and I run the engine as hot as I can for the altitude (shoot for anything over 1330). The engine runs cooler oversquare, and I always had more of a problem getting mine to run at temp than anything else. I run 100 lower than his number and as much as 5" over (that I'll publish). I don't know what Diggler's link is for but it's probably nothing to do with running a Husky for distance, as we haven't talked about that for a couple years now.

You guys arguing over width: either salad or prune-juice works wonders for your problem I hear . . . take your pick!

 

[sj]

Howdy Matt,

Hope things are well. I see your long range radar went off an alerted you to this thread.

sj

 

[flagold]

I check in every once in awhile to make sure you boys aren't going to far afield . . .

Shoot me your snail address again Steve and I'll get you the latest DVD.

MM

 

[diggler]

delete

 

[mvivion]

Dave,

Lies or misconstruances, take yer pick. Call em what you want. I think, and I may be mistaken here, that Diggler's point was that there really isn't that much difference in the widths of the two aircraft. I would certainly agree with that.

That said, I think most folks who get in a Husky will tell you they seem wider. I dunno why, I'm just reporting my findings, flawed as they may be.

I hardly think there's a point to calling me a liar, but if it makes you feel better, good on yer, I reckon.

My point was simply that they are so close as it to be irrelevant, but I apparently didn't state that well.

Think what you like, I'm sure you will in any case. Heaven knows all us Husky drivers are liars and cheats, always trying to infiltrate the ranks of the true believers.

Only problem is, I still have more time in Cubs than Huskys,

:lol:

MTV

 

[diggler]

delete

 

[flagold]

http://www.taildragger.info/Yabb/

-- we don't discuss operation there, it's in emails. I'm not sure anyone (flying a Husky) monitors that much at all.
_________________________________________

You fellas have fun!

(actual unretouched photo shot while flying cross-country with a SuperCub demonstrating proper Husky technique for keeping up with same)

 

[Dave Calkins]

Sorry about sounding like I called Mike a liar!!!

DAVE

 

[flagold]

"Sorry about sounding like I called Mike a liar!!!"

Dave:

Not to worry -- I've have called him worse . . .

At one point, he incensed me to the point that I went through his resume, his offerings to airline pilots for training, his entire work history with G&F, his work habits with environmental concerns, his speaking engagement synopsis, every rating and training course he ever went through, and frankly, I can tell you that the man never has amounted to much . . .

We're basically all one big happy family here of superegos . . . no harm done in my opinion. It's easy to get caught up in the moment.

Do take care of yourselves.

 

[Crash]

I'd like to see a Husky perform the same landings as the '79 Cub in the Long Props video. Get real! Crash

 

[flagold]

I might have even owned that 79 Cub, Crash, actually, that was my favorite of the bunch (I had 6).

Send me the video (through Steve) and I'll see what I can do for you.

There is one thing I can agree with MV on -- I have 28 years more experience in Supercubs than Huskies -- though I doubt it will matter much in your case.

MM

 

[Steve Pierce]

https://www.shop.supercub.org/displayProductDocument.hg?productId=15&categoryId=2

Video is $29.95.

 

[Dave Calkins]

Simple question. Please take it at face value.

Matt, Mike, other's who've owned multiple Cubs and at least one Husky, others's who've operated both for seasons at a time............

.......what will a say, 1150 pound 150 horsepower -18 do, in your opinion, that a Husky won't?

Please, face value answers.

I'll ask another face value Husky question later.

Thanks, DAVE

 

[ground loop]

Dave,
Is the above question for floats or wheels?

 

[irishfield]

Dave,
Is the above question for floats or wheels?

Does it matter?? The answers will be smoke and mirrors anyhow! LOL

 

[Dave Calkins]

Yeah, that's why I asked it "face value".

It will be hard for any of THIS bunch, pro-H, or pro-Cub, to answer straight up.

I was talking wheels, 30 or 31's, but any comparisons would be interesting.

I've got other questions to add later....but figured it's be good to get this one question answered first.

Thanks for caring guys. DAVE

 

[irishfield]

....off to the shed to get my hip boots before it gets too deep around here.......... :lol:

 

[mvivion]

Dave,

With due respect, that question has been answered at least two or three times on this forum by yours truly. I've also written a couple magazine articles to that effect.

Finally, nobody here really wants to hear the results again, anyway, including, I'm guessing, you.

MTV