Looking for an any opinions on which would be easier to learn in / instruct out of - a Super Cub, Husky or Carbon Cub EX/FX? And why?

Better back seat in one vs. the other? One easier to fly than the other? Better visibility in one or the other? One hold up to ham handed students over the other?

I've got lots of J-3/PA-18 time myself, but none in a Husky or a Carbon Cub, and all my Super Cub time is in the front seat. The mission is a plane I can teach my son and a maybe a few other local kids to fly in, while still having a fun back country plane my son and I can take trips around the Northwest in up to 300 NM.

Thanks!

They are all awesome planes.

How necessary is it to optimize for bush operations?

The Husky is a little less bushy than a Supercub, but quite a bit faster, will expose the student to operating a CS prop, and many of them are fitted with the equipment necessary to earn an instrument rating as well.

A Husky is no slouch for demanding back country ops either.

The toe brake vs heel brake difference is also a matter worthy of consideration.

If cost is no obstacle, a late model Husky would be a real treat to learn to fly in.

If speed is important the Husky stands out on your list. Aerodynamically clean compared to others on your short list. I have covered 1400 nm during daylight with 31" tires, 3 fuel stops one of which included a hour and a half lunch. The back seat gets rave reviews and is a great mount for instruction. Both seats a little hard to enter gracefully for older crowd. Very robust airframe that can take a beating. Must be flown with pitch trim control in the pattern. I used my left forearm on the trim wheel as a 3rd flight control on landing. A solid stable comfortable aircraft certified to Part 23 safety standards. Control system not as light and sporty as other offerings. Both old wing (mid 2005 and older with spades) and new wing fly the same with a slight edge in slow flight leaning to the newer wing.

If maximum STOL performance is your game a Carbon Cub provides consistently shorter takeoff and landing. Super lightweight. Overhead flap handle. Great weekend warrior mount but has proven a little less robust when operatied in rough terrain and/or with heavy loads. Then again it isn't intended for commercial outfitter type abuse. In my opinion most flexible version of the CC would be the Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) with higher gross weight and ability to customize. ELSA second best legal combination and SLSA most restrictive due to limited flexibility for modifications. Generally priced above mid-time Huskies or Super Cubs.

The ubiquitous Super Cub is easy to fly yet just plain slow. The dated original design has the most approved modifications available for almost any type certificated aircraft. Did I mention slow? There is a reason Super Cubs have a strong following. They really are very fun to fly. Fixed pitch prop yields simplicity. Jackscrew pitch trim and lack of springs in the control system yield pleasant handling. I love heel brakes and most SCs have them. Quality and price all over the place with aiframes dating from 1950 to today. Did I mention slow yet? If you're willing to shift the idea of a PA18 a little you might consider a PA12 with its larger back seat combined with the PA18 tail and flap modifications. The PA12 has a lower wing angle of incidence value than the PA18 so the 12 can be a wee bit faster in cruise with a wee bit less STOL performance. PA12's have proven to be a perfect blue collar grocery getter in Alaska.

Don't rule out the Bellanca / American Champion Scout. Very easy entry and egress with it's big door. Most pilot cockpit space. Fast like a Husky. Roomy like an Air Tractor. Very harmonious controls. Constant speed prop. Maintenance free main landing gear. A few pilots I hold in regard love the Scout.

In my opinion the real-life STOL performance differences in all these aircraft is irrelevant for my limits. If 75 feet of landing or takeoff distance means I make it or not I don't belong there in the first place. If you live near the back country and don't have far to go the CC and SC are fantastic. If you want to cover some distance before playing the Husky or Scout might be more appropriate.

I know it's hard to do but I would try to get to fly an example of each type. Fundamentally many of the opinions expressed by others about your short list can be subjective. Well. Except for cruise speeds. Any airplane with the word "Cub" in it's model name without an X on the front, no matter how endearing, is categorically slow.

Jim

Jim answered your questions well. I would just add a couple of considerations from the instructing point of view. It is hard to see from back there (the greater the HP the worse it gets on a power/pitch approach), it is hard on a butt and back just a couple inches off the floor with legs almost straight out, small engines make it necessary to learn to fly the wing and manage all available energy, heel brakes make it necessary to learn to be active with dynamic proactive rudder, and ugly ducklings teach just as well and cause fewer to abandon tailwheel or flying altogether due to ground loop.

Carbon Cub has adjustable front seat. I don't recall how the front seat adjusts on the PA-18 or Husky.

I think it's harder to mix up rudder and brake inputs in a stressful situation with the heel brakes of a Super Cub. I know of a Sport Cub that went up on its nose many times because the student panicked and stuffed hard brakes when they were likely trying to correct with rudder.

The Husky is a wonderful airplane but the constant speed prop and larger engine might be distracting in an instruction scenario.

I think it would be easier to instruct in a side by side. Like a Cessna 140 or a Chief.

Tim

With the Carbo Cub SLSA and ELSA planes, look carefully at legal useful load. Most I’ve seen would be tough to impossible to LEGALLY instruct in.

Also, there are some limitations on instructing in EXP Aircraft, better than it used to be, but look carefully at those regs.

To Zane’s point, the SC has adjustable seat. Husky has fixed seat. Late model Huskys are much easier to board.

MTV

flybipe wrote:The mission is a plane I can teach my son and a maybe a few other local kids to fly in, while still having a fun back country plane my son and I can take trips around the Northwest in up to 300 NM.

Thanks!

If you live in West Linn, you're my neighbor (Lake O), so maybe part of the mission should be an airplane that your buddy Zane can borrow In that case I vote Husky...

If you are going to be letting the students solo and fly by themselves I would buy a beater cub. Someone is going to ground loop it along the way (maybe more then once ). Just keep it flying until everyone has some time and fix it up nice after last accident. I learned in a Pacer, young pilots pick things up fast they are a great do everything well plane.
DENNY

I'm definitely biased but just to reiterate what Jim said and also bang for buck an older fixed prop Scout really sounds like a great aircraft for your mission. It's a fair bit cheaper than the others, great romping around off airport, teaching and doing some trips. Easy to learn to fly, easy to fly from the back seat with decent vis, vis is great with 8.50's from the back, adjustable front seat for students, comfy and good leg room for taller people so you don't get crampy knees, heaters good, toe or heel brakes, both are fine, heel may be a little better for a lot of teaching as others mentioned, 180 hp 0-360, good power for the aircraft but still cheap to run around the circuit for teaching and getting your sons hours up and also cheap to maintain.

Also like Jim said speed is a big factor with those types for most people. With time in a J3 and PA-18 you obviously know but it's easy to forget when looking to buy and easy to say I'm not in a rush but in reality, throw in a headwind and I think most would agree slow gets old real quick if you want to actually get anywhere. If you're just local with lots of STOL no big deal slow is great. If you'll be in and out of short spots with a bit of weight you also need to sacrifice speed for performance but if not I would definitely sacrifice a bit of T/O performance for a bit more speed. Whether that's staying with a cheaper A/C and pitching props for a bit more cruise or investing more for something with C/S prop and or more performance I think it's a big factor with these types of aircraft.

Also as Denny said, lashing $150k for an aircraft and soloing new pilots in it may not be the best idea. That would probably weigh in most if teaching a lot.

Damn, I can't quit thinking like a lawyer! It's been almost 3 years since I hung it up, and it still haunts me!

Well, since that's what I'm doing, you need to watch out for liability, primarily personal injury for those you instruct, and that means proper insurance. As soon as you start instructing for anything of value, most insurance companies insist that you must have a commercial policy, and suddenly your out of pocket costs to run your airplane climb astronomically. Where you might pay, for example, $1500 for a private policy for your non-commercial recreational use of your own airplane, covering both hull and liability, expect to pay in the neighborhood of $8000 for a comparable commercial policy. And that's for a nose-dragger. I don't know what the surcharge would be for a tail dragger used for instruction--but that explains why it's hard to find a tail dragger available for instruction almost anywhere in the country, with only a few exceptions.

Beyond that, I haven't any opinion about which airplane, because I'm a crappy tail dragger pilot anyway--which is why mine's a trike.

Cary

I am biased... I think any taildragger, with a stick and tandem seating is the best to learn to fly in....
Sadly, I think Cary's concern about insurance is becoming a major factor.

Check with your carrier before you choose on an aircraft... you might find one airframe has considerably higher insurance rates for low-time/ students.
We recently went through exploring insurance options and found a bit of a hang-up...may be only isolated to our situation...
If we named 4 pilots, we were not allowed to have an "open pilot" clause.
Two of the pilots needed to be named (as they were low-time or students who would not meet "open pilot" minimums...and the 2 owners must be listed as named...so no open pilot option...
We were offered the "open pilot" option if we only named 3 pilots...so I would encourage you to check with your insurance provider to make sure your coverage will meet your usage needs.
There are certainly many more options, I am sure you can find a solution for your situation.
And be aware...if anyone is 75 or older...you fall into another category of special consideration!

I started in a 7ECA. Small useful load but a good trainer in my opinion. Then I moved up to a Super Cub and now a 180. I am still learning to fly a tailwheel aircraft.

I believe that Harvey Plourde's book recommends learning in a lower-powered aircraft and then transitioning to something like a Super Cub later on. I think his rationale is that the lower performance aircraft force you to learn better stick and rudder skills because they don't have the power to get off the ground as quickly.

I have not given any tailwheel instruction myself, but I see the logic in that argument. Not to mention the inherent cost savings. What do you all think about that?

I started in a C-150 then 7 hrs later bought a 7ECA. At about 160 hrs I got my Private...time slows when flying your own plane in Alaska's outback. Had several other taildraggers including Cubs since but the Champ taught me to live with lower power, no flaps, and spring gear. It was fast for the power and economical to own. But you had to fly it to the chocks when windy. Later flying bigger rigs I had no problem dealing with takeoff and landings in challenging weather.

So I guess I'd train in a plane that would teach as many skills as possible yet make the experience fun and cost effective to operate.

Edit: Sorry I missed the "easier" and "backcountry" part of the question. Supercub fulfills both. Can't hardly make a bad takeoff or landing for training. Teach without flaps and full power so the student learns to fly the wing. Maintain coordinated flight and put a skid/slip indicator on the back of the front seat so you are aware of what's going on up front. All I know about that.

Gary

I learned in a 7ECA and have flow adozen or so tail daggers and more trikes. Currently own a 180 and fly several other tail daggers, floatplanes and nosewheel aircraft on a daily basis. I have trained on a champ and 150 tail dragger in the last year. I prefer the 150 to do initial training. Much easier to communicate and see all the instruments. Once the basics of flying are grasped then transition to a cub or similar.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is very little disadvantage to starting in a tricycle airplane so long as the pilot doesn't transition to tailwheel. It is the primacy thing. As many iterations of tailwheel landing as nosewheel landing are required to extinguish nosewheel response, or non-response, The catch up is more likely to allow a damaging ground loop than initial training in tailwheel. That was why we had so many zero timers for PPL, CPL, and Ag at Ag Flight. Parents in the spray business knew the disadvantage of starting nosewheel.

Many pilots of nosewheel airplanes tend to land at touchdown speeds that would total a tailwheel airplane in a ground loop. That is because they were taught that way and there is little likehood of ground loop. That is a potentially expensive mind set in tailwheel airplanes.

Folks, thanks for the great suggestions to consider!

A couple other things I probably should have pointed out - my brother owns a Cessna 150 that we can fly and I own a Pitts S-2B that my son has gotten pretty decent stick and rudder skills flying from the front seat, so he's already used to a fair amount of power, as well as lack of forward visibility. Budget-wise I'd prefer to stay under $150k but would be willing to go closer to $200k it I found something that I fell in love with.

I had not paid much attention to the empty weight/gross weight on the Carbon Cub, so thanks for pointing that out. Definitely makes the SS a non-starter since I'm about 210 lbs and my 15 year old son is about 180 lbs...

Heel brakes vs. toe brakes are also something I hadn't considered, but definitely are on my mind now.

As far as Super Cubs being slow, I hadn't paid that much attention to cruise speed considerations since I assumed they were all comparatively slow, but now that I think about it, doing 105 mph when I'm used to 170 in the Pitts could get old real fast, even though this isn't supposed to be a serious touring airplane.

All out short field capabilities aren't that important either, we're looking to go camping at some backcountry strips, but by "strips" I'm thinking more like Johnson Creek or Tieton.

Overall control harmony is important to me i.e. just plain fun to fly, so for that reason, I'm going to try hard to get a flight in a Husky, a Scout and a Carbon Cub EX/FX before I make up my mind - because I know a Super Cub is a blast!

Thanks again guys!

Might just be me but with your experience and budget a basic trainer isn't what's being asked for here...you want something else that might serve for basic training but that's not your core goal (?). You want a more than adequate airplane. Buy a Cub Crafters whatever and enjoy the speed and performance. Anything less is a compromise and otherwise you'll be weighing the choice forever.

Gary

With those updated criteria, I’d start looking for a good, low time Husky. You’re already familiar with Aviat build quality with the Pitts. The later Husky ( ~ 2005) have fantastic aileron effectiveness, and lots of nice features, such as the Munson left window, bigger door, high gross weight, and much more. Many people are put off by the trim system, which results in heavy elevator forces, but if you learn to fly the plane with trim (which is VERY fast and positive) you’ll quickly forget you ever noticed it.

If you can’t find a 2005 or later in your price range, look for an A 1 B model. Lots of really nice low time planes out there.

Get a good checkout in the plane and you’ll find that it’s ~ 20 mph faster than a Cub but flies just as slow.

MTV

I agree with Mike, look for a Husky.

I have owned 2 Husky's, a very nice Super Cub, Arctic Tern and Citabria 7ECA, my dad owned a Scout. Having experience with all of these airplanes I would say go with a Husky. I actually much prefer the trim system of the Husky over the Super Cub. Husky is faster on less fuel burned which means less gas you need to haul around for the mission, better MPG. The Husky airframe and "crashworthiness" is far better than a Super Cub, I have witnessed crashes in both and I have no hesitation in saying the Husky is better in this regard. All airplanes are great airplanes but for me, for many reasons including those mentioned above and many many more not listed, I much prefer the Husky.

Kurt