I've got some news for you folks: It ain't necessarily just the airplane when it comes to performance characteristics.

All of these airplanes that have been mentioned are great airplanes in their own right. And they all have their Achilles heel as well.

ACA had some quality control issues for a while, most if not all of which have been fixed. I know a couple of guys who are WORKING Scouts, and they'll go just about anywhere most others will go.

The Scout does have a lot of room in the cabin, it comes with a lot of fuel, and a cabin heater. That wing doesn't work as well at the bottom end of the envelope as some other wings in this category, but it's not that different. There was a time when the corrosion proofing was pretty poor, and there was none in the tail. Again, I hope that's been fixed, but reputations are important in aviation.

There is no question that the Scouts door is a LOT easier to get in and out of, and as I age, I appreciate that.

Scouts tend to be heavy. And heavy limits performance. More power helps, but there's a point where more power, because of the additional weight of the engine/fuel, doesn't improve things.

Huskys and Cub wings work a little better at the bottom end of the envelope. The Husky is fast, as fast as the Scout, in my experience, though I've not been around one of the big engine Scouts. Both are faster than any Cub, though.

Short takeoff on wheels, I'd put the Cub and the Husky on pretty close to even footing here, but note I'm talking about production airplanes, not homebuilt.

Short landing on wheels, I'd take a Cub most days....they're just easier to land short. If you're really sharp and current in a Husky, you could come really close, but.....

On floats or skis, the Husky will outperform any production airplane out there on takeoff in my experience. Landing on water, whether frozen or not, is pretty easy to do short.

Build quality on the Husky is really hard to beat, and they offer far more options than the competition, many of which can make the Husky pretty heavy as well.

Cubs come in two flavors: Piper Cubs and Cub Crafters Top Cubs. Lots of differences there, and far too many to discuss here. Suffice to say, both can be great airplanes. The Top Cubs, in my experience, are heavy compared to the originals. But, the Top Cub has a 2300 pound GW, so useful load is still good in a 1300 pound plus airplane. But, as I noted earlier about weight....high weight hurts performance.


Now, for comfort....the Scout would be my choice every time. And the differences in performance aren't that huge in any case. Again, the pilot will have more influence than the aircraft in many situations.

Note that I haven't considered the Carbon Cub in this litany. Frankly, the PRODUCTION Carbon Cub is a single seat airplane, practically speaking, and legally. Granted, there are some light folks who could legally fly these planes with two up and some gas, but most of us....it's a single seater....just like my PA 11. Will it carry more? Probably, but now you're dancing with the devil.....and maybe the FAA.

As Z noted, pick the one that suits you best. They're all good airplanes.

FWIW

MTV

Ok,

2012 180hp with 3 blade MT

Empty weight 1375 or so, its a bit heavy but it is full IFR with a Garmin GTN 750 and all the bells and whistles, not how I would have ordered it but since it was a dealer inventory airplane and I got a good deal I thought I could live with a little extra weight and I have learned to really like the traffic feature of the GTN 750 coupled with the 330 transponder. No, I am not some "head up and locked" type but traffic alerts in ADDITION to looking outside and constantly illuminated LED landing lights sure helps. The rear seat heat is nice for the back seater in cold wx. My airplane is fully IFR if I ever need it, I don't usually do single engine IFR but… I have it if I need it.

Empty weight 1375, Gross weight 2250, legal useful load 875, my airplane.

Approach speeds? I really don't know for sure, I fly mostly by feel but I normally approach around 50 light, 55 gross, or so to a couple hundred feet then don't look at airspeed any more and rely on feel.

Take off distance a bit longer than my light 150 super Cub with 82x42 Borer prop. However, when I break ground I climb at a better angle and rate than my Super Cub. Not a lot, but better.

Speeds/Efficiency…. Ahhhhh, this is where the Husky shines. 1800-1900 rpm and 22-24 inches of manifold pressure is about 105-110 statute miles per hour at 5.5 to 6 gallons per hour. Throttle back and fly with your J3 buddies and get down to the 3-4 gph range. Kris Maynard flew his Husky for 15 hours with out refueling on stock 50 gallon fuel tanks and landed with legal reserves. His fuel burn was was very low. If I want to bump it up to 24 squared I burn 8-9 gph and do 130-135, I don't do this often so the higher power settings are from what I recall, I may be off a bit but think its pretty close. You must lean to achieve these numbers. 2 blade MT prop is a bit faster in cruise.

My dad's Scout in comparison was a bit less in all areas. That being said, it was a very capable airplane and since it was an older airplane the cost was a fraction of the cost of my new Husky. My dad's Scout was a great airplane at a great price.

I have owned or flown all the airplanes in this category so when it came to buy after a long period of not having an airplane, I chose another Husky. For me it fits my mission profile best. I grew up in Alaska flying various airplanes over most of the state. I live in New England now and don't do much "hardcore" flying but if I did live in Idaho or Alaska the Husky would still be my first choice, it also makes a fantastic float plane. I like em all, I would love to have a new fire breathing Scout as well as a Rod Schue or Airframes Alaska Super Cub in addition to my Husky but as it is now, I am eating Top Ramen noodles just to pay for one airplane.

If you really want to be educated or hear about the difference of the various airplanes ask Mike Vivion (MTV) or George Mandes, they have "been there and done that" with Super Cub's, Carbon Cub's, Husky's, and so on so they could give an accurate un biased comparison.

I love the way a Super Cub feels...
I love the efficiency, strength, over all performance in all parameters, build quality of the Husky...
I really like the comfort and cabin space of a Scout as well as the 70 gallon fuel…
The light weight high power of a Carbon Cub looks like a blast…

I think by now you get the picture, I like em all but for me the Husky is the winner.

Now after saying all that, I would trade em all if I could have my Widgeon back! That airplane was incredible, just waaaaayyyyy to expensive to keep and fly. Boy oh boy, I sure had fun with that beauty!



G44

^^^

This needs to go into the knowledge base - for both the Scout and the Husky.

Let people make up their own minds

I would consider a Scout if it had Cub Style landing gear.
That would make it like a new PA-12 size-wise.
If I had to live with spring gear, I'd stick with the Skywagon.
237

The one thing that gets me about the Austro Engines AE 300 is that it looks to be a converted automotive engine. Liquid cooled gear reduction.
I have always been a fan of air cooled for aircraft. No antifreeze, water pump, radiator, hoses, thermostat etc, especially in the bush! lots of things to go wrong!
That being said, liquid cooled from a performance standpoint makes sense. More power, more constant temps (as long as cooling system is working properly) so the engine should last longer.
The 50k increase in price will eventually be negated by the fuel savings. although it will take a while.