19 Apr 2024, 07:17 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 10:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/19/09 Posts: 332 Post Likes: +272 Company: Premier Bone and Joint Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
|
|
I was in the same boat about 8 years ago and looked at both. I ended up picking a ‘94 A-1 Husky and have been very pleased. At the time, the only Carbon Cubs available were fixed pitch. While both planes are slow, the Carbon Cub was REALLY slow and that does make a difference when you need to travel a distance to your intended backcountry flying spots. I have flown my Husky with two people and full camping gear from eastern Wyoming, to the Utah backcountry, hiked for 3 days and back home without stopping at an airport; it has good range. Now there are Carbon Cub EX’s available with variable pitch props so the speed difference is lower (and the spring-steel gear leg version is faster than the Husky). The fit and finish as well as the appearance of the CC was definitely better than my older A-1 as were the ergonomics with the CC having pitch trim and flap handle in a more sensible place. But the CC was also twice the cost of the Husky and I knew I was going to be taking the plane into the backcountry (non-airfield, just random landing sites for hunting, fishing and general messing around) all the time and I assumed it would get dirty, scratched and muddy…possibly damaged. So the idea of a beautiful paint job and gorgeous interior was a bit of a negative on the CC for me (since that was part of the increased cost). That has come to pass and I’ve had dead snags go through the horizontal, the interior has been covered in beach sand, mud, bloody game bags and several wet/dirty dogs. The other issue was build integrity. No question the CC is lighter and will have somewhat better short field performance (by a small amount) but the thickness of the steel tubing and general rigidity of what is essentially a roll-cage around the pilot and passengers in a Husky were attractive to me despite the increased weight (mine is 1310# with 31” tires and the BBW in back). Climbing into the CC, when I pulled myself into the cockpit by the “a-pillar” bars, the CC’s deformed (elastically of course) while the Husky’s were rock solid. In back-country ops, “crashability” is a very real factor. I wear a helmet and while I might be bashed around a bit, I think I could survive a pretty serious wreck in the Husky. I modified mine with Seaplanes West (Atlee-Dodge) extended gear with SGS system, a 210cm MT prop and a cargo pod for greater performance (but slightly slower airspeed with the un-faired, longer gear and large tires). Another potential advantage of the Husky if you live in a cold area is that you can fit it with RF8001 skis which (IMO) are about the best hydraulic wheel skis you can buy. The performance in warm/sticky Spring snow in LZ’s above 11,000 feet as well as the deep Rocky Mountain powder has been phenomenal. I don’t think you can put them on the Cub. Both are excellent planes. As always, pick the one that fits your budget and mission.
_________________ Thomas
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 12:45 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/13 Posts: 404 Post Likes: +247 Location: KFTW-Fort Worth Meacham
Aircraft: C208B, AL18-115
|
|
I think you should add Legend Cub to your list. They have light sport and experimental.
We have been very pleased the flying qualities of our Super Legend. I agree with Thomas that if speed and range or critical, the Husky has the most gas and better speed.
For pure fun, Legend Cubs are great. Light, well built and most of the parts can come from Univair. CC and Husky airframe parts are largely proprietary with one source-the factory.
All are good options with different strengths. I think that you will find Legend Cubs to be a little better value.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 18 Jul 2021, 20:19 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/24/11 Posts: 109 Post Likes: +20 Location: KCFO
Aircraft: RV8, Scout
|
|
How about a Scout? It has more cabin room and is faster than a Husky not to mention easier to get in and out of and carries 70 gals of fuel.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 18 Jul 2021, 21:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/18/09 Posts: 1144 Post Likes: +203 Company: Elemental - Pipistrel Location: KHCR
Aircraft: Citation CJ2+
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How about a Scout? It has more cabin room and is faster than a Husky not to mention easier to get in and out of and carries 70 gals of fuel. Certainly a contender - but they seem to be few and far between. I don't want a new one, and used ones are tough to find - in any market. -Jason
_________________ -- Jason Talley Pipistrel Distributor http://www.elemental.aero
CJ2+ 7GCBC A-1C Husky
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 18 Jul 2021, 21:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/18/09 Posts: 1144 Post Likes: +203 Company: Elemental - Pipistrel Location: KHCR
Aircraft: Citation CJ2+
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've never flown a Husky but my I flew a friends Carbon Cub and got bored in 10 minutes. I think you should get the R44; it does everything 10 times better. I think I am going to do an R66. We are going to track them in SierraTrax so that is very helpful from a user perspective and if I operate it up in Utah, we get some decent density altitude (about 9000 ft the other day). A 44 struggles. 66 with Helisas would be nice. Working on finding one....
_________________ -- Jason Talley Pipistrel Distributor http://www.elemental.aero
CJ2+ 7GCBC A-1C Husky
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 18 Jul 2021, 21:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/09/09 Posts: 3388 Post Likes: +1366 Company: Progress Technical. LLC Location: Doylestown, PA (KDYL)
Aircraft: B-55
|
|
I owned a Carbon Cub EX and what somebody said about the speed is quite true. Like 100 mph max in any direction Fun plane though for local stuff though. 180 hp 900 lbs empty weight. Climbed like a homesick angel. I don't think my EX would have done well in the real out back though without toughening up the aircraft. Example, it had a largely fabric underside. Needed to have an aluminum pan. I guess you can take any aircraft and make it a bush plane, but an X-Cub is going to cost the better part of $300,000. Tough for me to take that much money and land off-airport all the time. It certainly won't be worth that much after it's got dings and scrapes. Insurance on that much hull value is expensive as well. Personal risk tolerance I guess. --paul
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 18 Jul 2021, 23:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/16/11 Posts: 11105 Post Likes: +7090 Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think you should add Legend Cub to your list. They have light sport and experimental.
We have been very pleased the flying qualities of our Super Legend. I agree with Thomas that if speed and range or critical, the Husky has the most gas and better speed.
For pure fun, Legend Cubs are great. Light, well built and most of the parts can come from Univair. CC and Husky airframe parts are largely proprietary with one source-the factory.
All are good options with different strengths. I think that you will find Legend Cubs to be a little better value. expound more, Jason is obviously reading my email. I was looking at an airplane that the whole crew could learn in. I think learning in a tail dragger is the way to go.
_________________ ---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 19 Jul 2021, 09:23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/10/10 Posts: 940 Post Likes: +622 Location: New Braunfels, TX
Aircraft: Conquest
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was looking at an airplane that the whole crew could learn in. I think learning in a tail dragger is the way to go. I learned to fly in a 1946 Taylorcraft (obviously a taildragger). However, when considering a training aircraft for my daughter, I'm going with either a 172 or a Cherokee. Why make it more difficult than it has to be? If she wants to fly taildraggers later on, she can learn it then. Plus, finding a tailwheel-CFI will be difficult.
_________________ ----Still emotionally attached to my Baron----
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 19 Jul 2021, 09:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/16/11 Posts: 11105 Post Likes: +7090 Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was looking at an airplane that the whole crew could learn in. I think learning in a tail dragger is the way to go. I learned to fly in a 1946 Taylorcraft (obviously a taildragger). However, when considering a training aircraft for my daughter, I'm going with either a 172 or a Cherokee. Why make it more difficult than it has to be? If she wants to fly taildraggers later on, she can learn it then. Plus, finding a tailwheel-CFI will be difficult.
Not sure that is the case. A Carbon Cub or a Legend Cub stall at 30 mph or thereabouts and they teach rudder control. I think they're equal. Getting a CFI that can teach is actually very difficult. I would prefer to have someone like Doug or Stan teach my family rather than a young CFI building hours.
_________________ ---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Carbon Cub vs Husky Posted: 19 Jul 2021, 10:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/10/10 Posts: 940 Post Likes: +622 Location: New Braunfels, TX
Aircraft: Conquest
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A Carbon Cub or a Legend Cub stall at 30 mph or thereabouts and they teach rudder control. I think they're equal. Getting a CFI that can teach is actually very difficult. I would prefer to have someone like Doug or Stan teach my family rather than a young CFI building hours. Let me put it another way - finding a convenient Tailwheel-CFI on my field is difficult.
_________________ ----Still emotionally attached to my Baron----
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|