BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Apr 2020, 18:07

Gary,
A friend here at the Hendersonville NC airport has a very nice aircraft for sale. Can't copy/paste from Barnstormers so search PA-11 light sport experimental. Let me know if you can't find it. It has a 160 on it and could be put on floats (would take it out of LSA) To me, being in the experimental/amateur built category with light sport is a plus. It is very close to a certified model with nothing goofy about it. The FAA has since slammed the door on this type of certification on aircraft built mostly from factory built certified components.

There are 2 ads-one has pics.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 May 2020, 00:35

Username Protected wrote:

Husky? looks like a Super Cub still in production.

have .7 in a Husky- it was cool.

Yes, very much still in production. Fantastic airplane and a FANTASTIC float plane!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 May 2020, 00:38

Username Protected wrote:

Stick with a cub. The air cam is more of a toy, it’s more comparable to an ultralight. Fly a cub and a husky side by side and you won’t consider a husky anymore. If you want a newer model the Top Cub on wip 2100’s is a great plane. I just acquired one for a client who does instruction in it on Lake Tahoe at 6000’ with DA up to 9000-10000’ it’s still a screamer. Nothing compares to a cub for fun flying.

Wow, having owned both Super Cub and Husky’s I strongly disagree. I MUCH prefer the Husky over the Super Cub. Super Cubs are great airplanes but Husky’s especially on floats are better all around airplane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 May 2020, 00:48

Username Protected wrote:

I'm leaning toward a husky, 200hp, and amphibs.
I don't need to take off or land in 600', but being able to do my "milk run" of 360 miles at 110-120kts makes it more appealing. now I just need to find one. seems like the market is inflated right now.

The 200hp Husky is nose heavy compared to the 180hp Husky. On amphib floats the 200 is really nose heavy. I would stick to the 180hp Husky for floats, great performance. The extra 20 hp of the 200 is offset by the extra weight.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 May 2020, 07:04

[quote="Will McAleer"]If you haven’t been around an Air-Cam much, parts of their construction are more similar to an ultralight than a pa18 or Husky, which may or may not be an issue for you.

The appearance can be deceptive. Keep in mind that the latest generation Air Cam can carry three people in addition to the two motors, two fuel tanks, full avionics, etc. The construction methods are strong enough to carry all that load. It is not designed for speed but cross country travel with the canopy should be fine if you're not in a hurry. It really is a fun plane to fly with incredible capabilities.

Tom

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 May 2020, 17:25

I’d like to add this information to the debate.

Having only owned the airplane for a little over 3 months, I am a bit smarter how to operate these Rotax engines. They like to be run hard, very hard. It turns out that I was running them at a much lower % horsepower than other owners.

The chart below is for the 912ULS with a constant speed propeller, and I have fixed carbon fiber Whirlwind props, but I think the RPMs and % horsepower would be similar.

I have been running at 4200-4400 rpm, which is about 55% hp, that’s why I was seeing about 70 mph or less. Yesterday I flew at 4500-4800 rpm and got a pretty solid 80 mph, close to 100 mph Ground speed with a tailwind. But these speeds were at 4500’ and 6500’, which is nosebleed altitudes for AirCams. But if you’re going cross country, you would definitely climb to higher altitudes to take advantage of winds, cool and smooth air.

Obviously the higher RPMs consume more fuel. At 4300 RPM you can cruise at less than 6 gallons/hr combined, the higher RPMs look to be closer to 8 gallons/hr. With 28 gallons total the legs are not that long.

Butch

Cub vs Air Cam on Floats