Kurt,

The FWS has operated voluntarily under FAR Part 135 for many years, with very few exceptions. When we started operating Husky aircraft, they were all legal, and squeaky clean, at least the ones I flew.

So, NO, we didn’t install skis and operate them as “Public Aircraft”, and by the way, the public aircraft rule changed significantly quite a few years ago, and are much more stringent now (as in NO passengers, ever).

There was one Husky on the Aero 2800 skis, but they were such POS in deep snow, I had to go out and rescue one pilot during a check ride, so the remaining one could get airborne. I landed next to them, parked, helped them stomp out a takeoff path, then loaded the check airman in my plane, took off without stomping a path.

That planes skis MAY have been field approved, but I know they were legal. In any case, after that episode, they pulled them and installed straight skis.

As I said, we welded on the very same gear adapters to install the Rossi Fernandez skis on my Husky.

It’s kind of ridiculous to say don’t consider buying an airplane based on an experience with one model of skis. There are several models of ski that ARE easily installed on a Husky. Cheap skis? Nothing is cheap on airplanes.

If you’re going to post something like this, be specific. The original post suggested that you can’t put ANY skis on a Husky without changing gear legs.

MTV

Sorry Mike, I was under the impression they were public use airplanes or what ever government agencies call their operation of airplanes.

Kurt

Hank, I would have your buddy look into the Trick Air skis. I have not flown them myself but from what I hear they are a decent performer, at least for a wheel penetration ski. Also I think, I emphasize “I think”, their STC spells out how to modify the gear so the gear modification approval is taken care of under the STC. Anyway, like Mike said, lots of options for skis.

Kurt

mtv wrote:Kurt,

The FWS has operated voluntarily under FAR Part 135 for many years, with very few exceptions. When we started operating Husky aircraft, they were all legal, and squeaky clean, at least the ones I flew.

So, NO, we didn’t install skis and operate them as “Public Aircraft”, and by the way, the public aircraft rule changed significantly quite a few years ago, and are much more stringent now (as in NO passengers, ever).

There was one Husky on the Aero 2800 skis, but they were such POS in deep snow, I had to go out and rescue one pilot during a check ride, so the remaining one could get airborne. I landed next to them, parked, helped them stomp out a takeoff path, then loaded the check airman in my plane, took off without stomping a path.

That planes skis MAY have been field approved, but I know they were legal. In any case, after that episode, they pulled them and installed straight skis.

As I said, we welded on the very same gear adapters to install the Rossi Fernandez skis on my Husky.

It’s kind of ridiculous to say don’t consider buying an airplane based on an experience with one model of skis. There are several models of ski that ARE easily installed on a Husky. Cheap skis? Nothing is cheap on airplanes.

If you’re going to post something like this, be specific. The original post suggested that you can’t put ANY skis on a Husky without changing gear legs.

MTV

Fixed it. I never claimed that no skis could be put on it, but it does read that way. I meant that he should check before he buys in case he wants skis. Rules change, and not everything you guys did years ago is legal anymore. As I stated, Aviat told me that different gear are needed for hydraulic skis as well. So maybe that has changed since you did it. I spoke with their parts department last winter about it. If you've discussed it with them after that then you probably have the newest info available. Or maybe they've been added to the TC since then and Aviat has changed the approval to state you can't simply weld on tabs anymore. As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but as of last winter this is the info I have received from Aviats parts department.

Something else to consider if you are looking at an older Husky. On an A1 model, if want to run 31" bushwheels the TC requires aeroski gear be installed as well as a 10" 3450 Scott TW for the A1, A1-A and A1-B. Just things to keep in one if you want to run BWs. If the required parts are on the plane already it will save you money on the future.

A1Skinner wrote:Something else to consider if you are looking at an older Husky. On an A1 model, if want to run 31" bushwheels the TC requires aeroski gear be installed as well as a 10" 3450 Scott TW for the A1, A1-A and A1-B. Just things to keep in one if you want to run BWs. If the required parts are on the plane already it will save you money on the future.

Good catch....and my apologies for my grumpy response to your earlier post......no excuses....just a grumpy day.

None of the Huskys I flew for FWS were equipped with 31 inch Bushwheels...the biggest tires I ran on them were 29 inch Bushwheels. That may have been because of the gear issue.

The Fluidyne ski Service Bulletin requiring the different gear is dated 1999. THe planes I flew with those skis were earlier examples.....I think 92 or 93. So, it may be that Aviat found some problems with the gear and changed to the requirement for heavy duty gear.....maybe??

It also may be that our procurement folks simply ordered the planes with the heavy duty gear.....?? Who knows?

I do know that the fittings for the ski gear on my two Huskys were done locally, by welding the fittings on the gear. That gear MAY have been the heavier duty gear, dunno....

Anyway, good information, and my apologies for not keeping up with this stuff.....haven't flown Huskys in a while.

MTV

A1Skinner wrote:Something else to consider if you are looking at an older Husky. On an A1 model, if want to run 31" bushwheels the TC requires aeroski gear be installed as well as a 10" 3450 Scott TW for the A1, A1-A and A1-B. Just things to keep in one if you want to run BWs. If the required parts are on the plane already it will save you money on the future.

I'm probably wrong BUT.... lol.

If you go the STC route on the 31's instead of the TC route you do not have to have the 10" tailwheel.

I think... (I have been up too long today)

Flying Dave wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:Something else to consider if you are looking at an older Husky. On an A1 model, if want to run 31" bushwheels the TC requires aeroski gear be installed as well as a 10" 3450 Scott TW for the A1, A1-A and A1-B. Just things to keep in one if you want to run BWs. If the required parts are on the plane already it will save you money on the future.

I'm probably wrong BUT.... lol.

If you go the STC route on the 31's instead of the TC route you do not have to have the 10" tailwheel.

I think... (I have been up too long today)

This brings up an interesting point. What's trumps, an STC or the TC? Same could be said about the gear legs.

A1Skinner wrote:

Flying Dave wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:Something else to consider if you are looking at an older Husky. On an A1 model, if want to run 31" bushwheels the TC requires aeroski gear be installed as well as a 10" 3450 Scott TW for the A1, A1-A and A1-B. Just things to keep in one if you want to run BWs. If the required parts are on the plane already it will save you money on the future.

I'm probably wrong BUT.... lol.

If you go the STC route on the 31's instead of the TC route you do not have to have the 10" tailwheel.

I think... (I have been up too long today)

This brings up an interesting point. What's trumps, an STC or the TC? Same could be said about the gear legs.

Whatever the IA buys off on…..

MTV

A1Skinner wrote:....This brings up an interesting point. What's trumps, an STC or the TC? Same could be said about the gear legs.

I'd say the STC trumps.
After all, it is a Supplemental Type Certificate.
But you have to acquire (buy) the STC for it to apply,
and cite the STC on the installation paperwork.

My 1962 PA-18 had about 50 mods that weren’t even a twinkle in anyone’s eye when the plane was born. Seems like the STC with applicable make and model would suffice.