Top cub v. Husky

[freestone]

I was about to suggest that the relevance and usefulness of this thread had worn out, even though the title question was exactly what I was interested in (the CC top ranger vs the 2005 Husky).

I have never even sat in a Husky and am still looking to find one to try it. I had convinced myself that the SC was the better choice, until this new wing came out. Then it was whether or not the gap there had closed enough that the value, speed, and constant speed prop finally outweighed the parts availability, trim, nice touch and visiblity of the SC.

Of course the new CC with its 2300gw throws out the cheap parts part of the equation.

But absent this new wing issue, I agree this topic has been pounded to death. An extra fraction of an inch isnt that much anyway inside.

Both seem amazingly similar - the similarities outweigh the differences for sure compared to almost all other types of planes out there.

 

[Crash]

Well to get back to the original question, 2005 Husky versus 2005 Cubcrafters Ranger. You didn't state your mission so here is my opinion from a "Bush" perspective.

They're neither one a good option for real bush flying. Initail cost, parts cost and availibilty is why you don't see any real bush pilots flying Husky's or the Ranger. They're also both relatively heavy and jazzed up for real bush work.

Cubcrafters builds a great product but I feel they really screwed up when they went away from the Piper Super Cub TC and lost all the parts resources of Univair, Atlee Dodge, Airframes Inc, Steves Aircraft, etc. etc. Now you bend a gear on a Ranger and you're in the same boat as the Husky guy. One source, sky high prices and you're at their mercy as to when the part gets shipped from Yakima WA.

If you're a "polisher" either one (Husky / Ranger) will do. If you fly the "Bush" then a beater Super Cub is the better choice. Take care. Crash

 

[mvivion]

Freestone,

Get in touch with Bob Hoff, owner of AeroMark, the Husky dealer for Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, and some other places.

Bob is a great guy to deal with, very knowledgeable about Cubs, Huskys and a lot of other airplane types (he's involved pretty deeply in the Staggerwing Club, and owns one of those). Aeromark is in Idaho Falls. Web address is http://www.onewest.net/~aeromark/


I'll bet that Bob will get you sat down in a Husky pretty quick.

If you are seriously considering purchasing one of these airplanes (CC Cub or Husky) you owe it to yourself if nothing else to hop a jet to Idaho Falls and go fly one with Bob. I've not flown with him, but I've heard a number of stories about his short landings.

I'd offer the same advice for the CC Ranger. Go to Yakima and fly one.

And, I don't mean a twenty minute demo flight. Get someone in both cases who knows the airplane to go wring one out with you.

For practical purposes, the big difference in these airplanes at the moment is speed. The Husky is roughly 20 mph faster than the CC airplane, both flown at 2000 pounds, in whatever configuration you care to choose, floats, wheels or skis. At that speed difference, you will find that the Husky will also be burning somewhere between 1 and 3 gallons per hour less fuel than the CC airplane.

Note that I limited my comment of the CC airplane to 2000 weight, cause I've not flown one at 2300 pounds. I can't believe it'll be a very nice flying airplane (certainly not any faster) at that weight, though, but that's just a guess. And, yes, I have flown some heavy Cubs.

So, for what its worth, that's my read. But if you are putting that much money on the line, go fly them, and not just one hop around the patch, either.

MTV

 

[pzinck]

I would like to see some extreme video of the husky.Are there any? There are quite a few huskys now,if they are really better than a cub someone must have filmed some by now. I am not talking of those pics of huskys landing where we could take a skyhawk. Thankyou.

 

[Lawn Dart]

It has finally come to the heart of the matter.

Crash said

...I've yet to see a place where a Ranger or Husky could go that my Cub couldn't.

And Mike said

…But if you are putting that much money on the line, go fly them, and not just one hop around the patch...

And there you have it.

 

[StewartB]

If you're a "polisher" either one (Husky / Ranger) will do. If you fly the "Bush" then a beater Super Cub is the better choice. Take care. Crash

Is your Supercub a "beater?" No offense, but there's little difference between your 180hp Cub and a CC Ranger, in appearance or cost.

SB

 

[pzinck]

The cub is a proven design and we know where it will take you.I still dont know if the husky will go the same places.People are always trying to justify why the husky is better,why? You can bank on a cub. Would you use saran wrap instead of a trojan? It may work,the original does work.

 

[Lawn Dart]

 

[Dave Calkins]

Dear Mike,

Often, when typing a response to questions on this and other forums, I find myself in a bubble, alone.

Often, I forget I am alone in that bubble, that others can not see my body language, that not all share my immediate demeanor.

My apology to you is offered in regards to the statement that I "...hate a lie..".

That must have seemed pointed directly at you.

Instead it was meant to say "... that I like to get things straight..". Surely that would have been a more positive way to state my intention and creed.

Please accept my apology.

Sincerely, Dave Calkins.

 

[StewartB]

I wish all you Husky bashers would just do the right thing for once. Find a Husky dealer and try one. Then the opinions might have some merit. I'm sure it's similar to the stereotypical criticism of "spam cans". The biggest critics have zero basis for criticism.

There should be an emoticon for a big yawn.

As for the comparison of Seran Wrap and a condom....put tomorrow's sandwich in a Trojan and see what the boys at work say. You'll be the talk of the town.

SB

 

[Crash]

If you're a "polisher" either one (Husky / Ranger) will do. If you fly the "Bush" then a beater Super Cub is the better choice. Take care. Crash

Is your Supercub a "beater?" No offense, but there's little difference between your 180hp Cub and a CC Ranger, in appearance or cost.

SB

Stewart, you missed my point. Within 15 minutes of my hanger I have three sources for Piper Super Cub parts at reasonable prices, plus a huge stock of used parts laying around. I mean ALL parts, from tail wheel to spinner. A Ranger or Husky you have almost zero parts available in Alaska.

OK, lets say your bought a new Ranger or Husky. You take it over to Alexander Creek in stack it up in the trees because of gusty cross winds. The fuselage needs to be jigged. Where do you take a Husky or Ranger fuselage in Alaska to get it jigged and repaired. Nowhere thats where. Again, there are at least three PA-18 and two PA-12 jigs in Anchorage or the valley. I don't care how well or fast they (Range / Husky) fly if you can't get parts locally or repair them without shipping the fuselage outside, they have little appeal to me. The reason Husky insurance is so high...they have NO salvage value when wrecked! Take care. Crash

 

[flagold]

Dave: Good. Pretty good policy not to PO the game warden in your own state . . .

150 SC -- that's the ticket. My favorite ride in that line. No trouble from it ever, perfectly balanced, just get in and go . . .
_________________________________________
You know, the Husky has been out now for almost 20 years -- not like it's a brand new phenomenon. And yes, it's used (hard) in Alaska too -- I note the folks on our mail list from there and certainly MV don't go on and on about the Husky breaking. At this point, it does seem that just as many are trying to justify riding around in 1st gear burning a boatload of fuel as are trying to justify the high Husky (new) prices. Used: advantage is all to the Husky at this point. New CC: nice paint but still a single gear airplane . . . If you're careful in setup, you can wring 20 smpg out of the Husky and not have to get out and change props to land, 17 is easy to get with it.

If you've already got a SC -- by all means, enjoy -- one of the all time greats -- as is the Husky.

 

[mvivion]

Dang,

You guys are tougher than I figured: Comparing saran wrap to Trojans? Whoa!! No wonder there are so many strange looking kids in Alaska .

I'm not the one constantly defending the Husky, pzink. People keep asking questions about them, and they generally deserve an answer.

As was noted, much of the bashing, whether it be of Huskys, Scouts or Cessnas, is by folks who don't have experience in those other aircraft.

That, my friend, is generally referred to as defensive behaviour.

I was in the back seat of a Husky the other day with a guy who had maybe 5 hours time in one. He landed in an off airport environment in 250 feet from the edge of the bar to stop. It ain't rocket science, but its different than a Cub.

Dave, I appreciate your apology. Not necessary.

I have repeated several times:

I work 80 to 100 miles north of here. I have to take off, fly over or through mountains for 100 miles, work for several hours, then fly home.

You can't do that in a Super Cub in a reasonable work day.

In the process, I can (and do), land the airplane routinely in strips as short as 400 feet. The airplane rarely requires more than 250 feet to accomplish that. That is as tight as I care to work one of YOUR Super Cubs as well, so it works for me.

Now, if you are ACTUALLY working 200 foot strips regularly, more power to you, and by all means have fun. I wouldn't take my personal airplane into that kind of stuff, and I also wouldnt take one of YOUR airplanes in there. Lessen the engine quit, of course. Doesn't mean I couldn't, I simply choose not to. The taxpayers thank me, I believe.

Guess I'm just not a real bush pilot. Do I care? Nope.

The Husky I will do sheep surveys in with the airplane on floats. I'd NEVER do that in a Cub, ANY Cub, due to the really poor climb characteristics of Cubs, compared to the Husky. The Husky is simply without peer in the mountains.

But, if you always fly within 15 miles (yes, I'm being a smart ass here, so just get over it) of your home, and you frequently land in 200 foot one way sites, the Cub definitely has some advantages for you.

I don't own or operate airplanes with the notion that I'm going to break parts and therefore I must keep spares on hand. I know some folks do, and I am not slamming them. I just can't afford to do so, at home or at work.

I basically agree with Crash, then. If you are going to bash your airplane, don't spend $150 large for it. Buy some piece of junk and run it till it drops, or something fails in flight 8) .

Everybody talks about all the airplanes that the government flies that are seized from bad guys. That rumor is very much overplayed. Most every seized airplane I've seen come through the door, I wouldn't sit in on the ground, let alone in flight. I know of only one airplane in the last 29 years that we've actually put into our fleet that was seized, but I may have missed one, but certainly no more than that.

The bad guys operate junk for two reasons: They are risking their airplanes to seizure, and they are risking their airplanes in landing.

The primary reason the Troopers bought Robinson helicopters is to catch those guys, without risking a very expensive state airplane in the process.

If you really, really need to land in very nasty places, the R-22 might be just the aircraft you're looking for .

Oh, yeah, I like Scouts too .

Dave, cool it, I'm not offended.


MTV

 

[Lawn Dart]

Where is this thread going?

 

[pzinck]

I think the husky is probably a great plane.What i have seen of them they make a pretty good bush machine.I just get sick of all of the husky owners telling me it is much better at real short field landings than a cub.I have not seen any of the local huskys do that yet.If you look at the older ad's for the husky they always claim they have improved the ancient technology.Every husky owner tells me how much better than a cub they are.When i see ahusky owner i dont go up to them and explain all the virtues of a cubs performance,but it seems all the husky owners do this to me.I dont know if i like bashing them,i just get sick of hearing the cub isnt as good.I agree with the yawn emoticon,most people know the cub is the best damn short machine going. I do know of a few husky owners that once had cubs and claim the husky is much better,these guys never landed their cubs short and still are'nt landing short with their huskys.I guess i wonder how they would know if the husky was better? They all brag about the speed. I guess i did'nt buy the cub for speed.I think if you are going to load a cub with all that crap and chi chi dice to boot,a husky will be as good. I bet some huskys perform as good as those over modded ,radio stuffed ifr ,stereo cd player,leather interior,fur lined cubs.But they do not perform like a light weight just safety modded super cub. I think some people have lost sight of what the cubs were designed for.I wonder what cliff hudson and don sheldon would think of these plush cubs.I bet they would start ripping stuff out of them. I think some people really want a caravan and try to make their cub into one. I guess it is no wonder that some people think huskys perform better than cubs. I will have to recover soon and will be looking to lighten her up any way i can.I guess i remember when i was a kid in the sixties,the only planes with all that junk were twins. Would you buy a used plugged muffler to put on you cub? If the answer is no,then take that junk out of your cub and you will be amazed at what they can do.

 

[diggler]

delete

 

[flagold]

Damn. Now I have to go out and buy some Chi Chi Dice. What are Chi Chi Dice?

PZ: I really don't think either is better (better for what -- mud - rocks - clay - amphib - speed - climb - range -- you'll get a different answer each time depending on who you're talking with).

Having spent my last cub flight flying around with a hand-held radio taped to my head and having the map and notes sucked out the door and flying along treetop to try and get the county road number off a street sign with aging eyes -- I've decided no more stripped planes of any kind for me. Bring on the Chi Chi Dice!

The serious answer: after following along loosely here, I've come to the conclusion the best one is the one you'll spend the most time in and practice with.

Good luck with your flying.

 

[pzinck]

Sorry,i wasnt able to get my meds over the weekend.

 

[mvivion]

zink,

Chill, Man :lol: . The start of this thread was a comparison between the CC airplane and a Husky. Not your stripped down cub and a husky.

My comments still apply to what you're talking about, and Matt hit it on the head: What do you need to do with the airplane?

But, you seem to have completely missed the guys' question: It was how does a 2000 pound Husky compare to a 2300 pound Cub. NOT how does a 2000 pound Husky compare to a stripped down Cub. I got a pretty good idea how a 2300 pound Cub flies, and its not like you describe.

I've flown some 970 pound Cubs, and not long ago, I flew a nice one that weighs 1020 on big tires. Great performing airplane, no doubt. Don't park it outside, cause it's got very little silver on it, though. It's a 125 with a 160 engine, so structurally, for those of you who profess to crash your airplanes frequently, its not nearly as strong as a CC Cub or a Husky, so crash carefully, okay?

You are correct as daylight that a nice light Cub is a delight to fly. But there are things that I'd like to have in an airplane that make them heavier, including crashworthiness items and I defy you to show me very many no joke, really light Cubs. Those are mostly a fairy tale, in my experience, at least when you actually put them on a scale.

So, the point was, and is, what do YOU need the airplane to do? If you do as I do on a day to day basis, the Cub won't work. That does NOT mean its a bad airplane, it simply means its not the right tool for my task.

As I said, if what I was doing was going 20 or 30 miles, and landing regularly on short-short strips, the Cub would be my choice, and frankly, I'd find a cheap one, cause its gonna get bent at some point.

Cheap ones mean that you are always fighting some airworthiness issues, though. We've had absolutely excellent service from our fleet of Husky aircraft, just hardly any routine failures. And every little item that's failed has been changed in design to eliminate the problem. When you are being dispatched regularly, and the boss expects to see you out there when he wants you out there, reliability is very important, and a new airplane makes that happen better than an old one.

If you are a mechanic, can fix it yourself, or your task is recreational, then an older airplane may make all the sense in the world.

again, its all what you need to do.

Airplanes are tools. They allow me to work, and others to recreate. So, choose the tool that'll do your job best, and make you happiest at the end of the day.

MTV

 

[irishfield]

The only good thing I've seen in this thread yet....Matt has mellowed ! LOL

 

[pzinck]

Upon reading the posts better i think you guys make some sense.Mike the point about daily dispatch had'nt been on the top off my thoughts.I guess it would be much better to have something newer if out flying 5 hours a day.I really would'nt advise that in my cub for extended service without lots of new parts.I was more thinking about weekend warriors out playing bush pilot.I am too quick to jump to conclusions afte working 6 or 7 hours,then going 360 miles in a flatbed yesterday. Flagold I think chi chi dice are the fuzzy dice you hang from the mirror.S B i havent tried putting a sandwich in one of those,but they work good for sausage.

 

[mvivion]

Zink,

Couple things I forgot to add:

1) I cant' recall ever stating that you can land a Husky shorter than a Cub, all other things equal.

2) I don't bash Cubs. They are great airplanes, and what a history of service! I can't think of an airplane that has done more varied tasks over the years than a Cub, and done them well. So, I'll not take anything away from the Cub. Husky owners who bash the Cub probably haven't flown one of them either, so that works both ways.

3) Must be something in the water where you live, cause I don't hear Husky pilots stating those things either.

Cept Matt, of course

MTV

MTV

 

[flagold]

SC landing distance (stopped):

Husky landing distance (stopped):

That's the way it worked out on that day.

Maybe I can bring some of this BS into perspective:

On a winter day with a wicked wind at Americus Georgia I came in with the C-180 and used practically all the runway and both sides of it getting the thing down. When I finally got to the ramp and tied it, I heard a faint whistle right above my head and looked up and there was the prettiest Citation, going so slow it seemed I could just reach up and grab it. He was in a bank and did a tight turn over the windsock, then joined the downwind and did a military turn onto final (that's a wing low constant speed constant rate turn from downwind with the wings becoming level over the fence on final (P-40's used it) I thought this had to be Bob Hoover because he turned off on the 2nd exit with that thing and there's times I had a hard time doing that. He pulled up and shut down by the jet pumps just as I went into the FBO and peeped out the windows to see who got out. Well out comes God's Grandfather -- this guy was so old I felt like I should run out there with a wheelchair or something. He comes tottering in (I held the door open for him) and says, "Where's the head -- Sonny?" I pointed to the back and he commanded: "Fill both tanks!" Well I don't know what you'd do, but I got my butt out there and got the line guy (it was Sunday -- only one guy there and he mechanics too in a hangar across the ramp) and he filled it while I did the windows. I was hoping to know who this was, but on the other side of the building a Caddy had pulled up, and the old guy got in it and was gone.

So what's the best bush-plane. Well, in the hands of that old guy, it might well be a Citation because I'm willing to bet he could eat any of our lunches on any day he wanted (no matter how good we are at typing how good we are . . .) and in anything he wanted.

PS: I've done some really dumb things in the SuperCubs and they always forgave me, a lot of times when they shouldn't have -- and for that, I'll always be grateful.

 

[Yard Dart]

After FLYING CC/Husky with new wing and loaded to gross. They are great airplanes. The husky new wing/flaps works great. The flaps have drag to slow you down. The constant speed works great at both ends. The fit and finish is good. The trim is something i don't like. The tail seem heavy to me. Might be a plus in a crosswind but not in snow. I think if they changed the trim and added some area to the tail feathers they might have something. The CC airplane has great control harmonicas. Better control feel when slow. Seem to be less sensitive to aft loading. Fit and finish are great. The gear removal is going to be much easer. Over al i think they are both great planes. But in the end i go with the cub it just feels like home. Yard Dart

 

[mvivion]

Uh, Yard Dart--the CC airplane isn't approved on floats. Yet.... Or skis, or....

:lol:

MTV

 

[behindpropellers]

Uh, Yard Dart--the CC airplane isn't approved on floats. Yet.... Or skis, or....

:lol:

MTV

MTV-

Are you sure? One of my friends has one scheduled for a January delivery with wip amphibs on it. He had an interesting story about the CC testing of the new cub with wip's amphib floats.

Tim

 

[Yard Dart]

Gee THanks for the info. I better take the floats off.

 

[mvivion]

Yard Dart,

I can only reference the Cub Crafters Type Certificate Data Sheet, up to amendment 1, as referenced five minutes ago on the FAA web site.

It does not list floats, skis or any other optional landing gears for the airplane. Revision one is the one that amends the TC for baggage.

I'm sure CC is working on another amendment, and maybe its been issued but not put up on the FAA's system yet.

But, if I was gonna fly one, I'd want to see the basis for the approval.

They can fly a flight test airplane in experimental category of course.

Also note that the CC airplane is Day, VFR only, again according to the TC.

The TC is the legal governing document for the airplane, by the way, not sales literature.

MTV

 

[StewartB]

If Wip amended their installation STC to include CC's Ranger, wouldn't that be legal? After all, I have accessories on my planes that aren't listed on the respective TC's.

SB

 

[sj]

...and of course he is talking about the 2300# Ranger, not the "Top Cub" which is a recertified PA-18-150 (like I have) with 40 some odd STC's on it.

If you have a Top Cub, not EVERY PA-18 STC works on it, but 99% of them do. You just have to check it out.

sj