Although it is going to be some time and much consideration to get me to move out of my very reliable and capable 1959 straight tail, I do feel a pulling towards eventually owning a tailwheel airplane.

I like the Aviat Husky and also just recently have been looking at the American Champion Scout. They both seem like very capable utility aircraft. The Husky's seem to be more available on the used market and has a higher useful load and higher service ceiling. The Scout's seem to bit a bit more expensive, yet appears to have better interior room and baggage space.

My flight profile is 50% backcountry and 50% general cross country for business and pleasure. It is just my girlfriend and I with our camping gear. The useful load and access is a consideration since I am not a light weight ( 5' 11' and 235 lbs.). The girl friend about 150 lbs.

The other driving factor is I am relocating to the Bitterroot Valley in Montana in March and I do have a 1200' grass strip on my property. A bit tight for the 182 but the Scout or Husky....maybe?

I have not flown either of these airplanes. Any thoughts from those out there that have experience with both would be helpful.

Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? ........Besides - get a Maule

Get a

I like the Husky

Cheers

I seem to piss off a couple people when I say it, but the Scout is easier to get yourself in and out of the airplane.....

lc

Joecub has a lot of hours in both. Maybe he will chime in or send him a PM.

I personally like the Scout. I thought getting in and out was easy for a big guy like me and the visabillity is awesome. But, I only flew in a Scout once for about 3 hours in the back seat. Very comfortable, too.

Sorry I can't give any feedback on a Husky :/

1500 hours in a Husky, 3-400 in a Scout.... I'll take a Scout! More room, heater that works, a front seat that's actually adjustable, a trim system that actually works, doesn't end up on its nose under heavy braking..ect. Be sure to get one with the mt prop...

I too like the Scout. I've flown several variants of the Champ lineage (7EC, 8KCAB) but the best was Patrol Guy's 8GCBC Scout. It's roomy, and just looks cool. Huskys are excellent airplanes too, but they're more like a Cub, which is to say a little smaller in the cabin.

Prior to American Champion starting production of the 8GCBC, they had wood spars (Bellanca.) Nothing wrong with that, but I prefer metal spars. That'll cost you a little more money because the newer vintage are just...newer and more valuable.

I too like the Scout. I've flown several variants of the Champ lineage (7EC, 8KCAB) but the best was Patrol Guy's 8GCBC Scout. It's roomy, and just looks cool. Huskys are excellent airplanes too, but they're more like a Cub, which is to say a little smaller in the cabin.

I am not an experienced tailwheel pilot but I did get my endorsement with Mike Mathews in his Decathlon 8KCAB and just loved the airplane and felt comfortable in it quickly. I next flew a super cub and don't hate me for saying this, but I did not feel nearly as comfortable flying it, maybe just needed more time but the Decathlon felt like a dream and that is what drew me to look at the Scout.

I grew up with various models of Champs and Citabria's. I like the Scout for the same reason several guy's already said above, easier to get in and out of and roomier. American Champion is putting out a good product. I dig Huskies, just not as much as Scout's.

I can't pick, because I've only flown other Champ models, Decathlons and Super Decathlons and Citabrias but no Huskys. But in general terms, I'd suggest that you fly both, enough that you get a feel for how each appeals to you. Numbers on paper don't mean nearly as much as a little stick time. Heck, I enjoy flying just about any airplane, but there are some which I enjoy a lot more than others, and I'll bet you're the same.

Cary

One of the main reasons I bought the 7GCBC was the shoulder and leg room. Huskies, and Super Cubs make me feel cramped. Probably the biggest seller was crosswind control these ACA planes have. I did my tailwheel endorsement in a Super Cub and I really liked the plane but when I climbed into a 7ECA my third landing was in a 15 knot 90deg crosswind. This really sold me on the planes.
Every aircraft is different, and I won't knock the other brands because they have their good and bad points, but if I were you I'd spend some time in a Citabria, Super Decathalon, or other ACA brand aircraft. I'm 6'4", 250 lbs and I can fly my 7GCBC all day long and it just feels comfortable to me...big selling point when traveling cross country when the air is not so smooth.
HC

DBI
I like both but I think you'll be better off keeping 59 182 and using it. Notice you have a 3 blade meat cleaver -P.Ponk I presume .1200 ft. strip is more than enough for this setup. I'd get a SPORTSMAN STOL kit installed if you presently don't have one already. Get a Lift Reserve Indicator and use it. Or if you just really have to have tail dragger I'd go with Cessna 180 or convert your 182. Husky is a great bird as is Scout but my choice would stay with what you have and improve it if necessary .

You didnt elaborate on how difficult of backcountry u want to do, but I think that the husky would have the edge on really short rough stuff. ( bush wheel stuff )

But I'll admit I don't have much experience with scouts.

182 STOL driver » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:18 am

DBI
I like both but I think you'll be better off keeping 59 182 and using it. Notice you have a 3 blade meat cleaver -P.Ponk I presume .1200 ft. strip is more than enough for this setup. I'd get a SPORTSMAN STOL kit installed if you presently don't have one already. Get a Lift Reserve Indicator and use it. Or if you just really have to have tail dragger I'd go with Cessna 180 or convert your 182. Husky is a great bird as is Scout but my choice would stay with what you have and improve it if necessary .

Yes to all the above and I do love the P.Ponk. It came w/ a Horton Stol so it does not compare to the Sportsman, but is still OK. I have flown the plane accross the country twice in the last two years on business and it was very comfortable.

DBI wrote:

182 STOL driver » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:18 am

DBI
I like both but I think you'll be better off keeping 59 182 and using it. Notice you have a 3 blade meat cleaver -P.Ponk I presume .1200 ft. strip is more than enough for this setup. I'd get a SPORTSMAN STOL kit installed if you presently don't have one already. Get a Lift Reserve Indicator and use it. Or if you just really have to have tail dragger I'd go with Cessna 180 or convert your 182. Husky is a great bird as is Scout but my choice would stay with what you have and improve it if necessary .

Yes to all the above and I do love the P.Ponk. It came w/ a Horton Stol so it does not compare to the Sportsman, but is still OK. I have flown the plane accross the country twice in the last two years on business and it was very comfortable.

SPORTSMAN is light years ahead of Horton ! I'll send you the flight test (FAA) results if you send me a email direct to [email protected] . Lots of people take OFF there Horton's and replace with SPORTSMAN .and the VG's do little except get in the way .VG's on tail are very effective but wing ???----I wouldn't pay the postage to get a set of VG's to put on any of my airplanes .P.S. If you have FLAP GAP SEALS --drill them OFF and chuck'em .That KILLS 20% of your lift on takeoff ! If Cessna would have thought that It would make a faster airplane they would have added them at factory !

Well, Why do I own a Cub? (90 hp J-3/PA-11) (the Husky is a highly modified Cub)
First off, the opportunity presented itself to buy a 'Basket of Parts' that was supposed to be a complete airplane at a reasonable price-with a hollow promise from an airplane re-builder to assemble it cheaply. (I was a naive FOOL. Long story. NEVER buy a pile of parts called an 'airplane'! NEVER!)
What I liked/like about the rag Piper/Cub line of airplanes is lots of plentiful parts from many sources-both used and new. No monopoly. It has a long history of use and reliability-so I'm not a test pilot. J-3 Cubs are slow (for sight seeing 'low and slow') and FUN to fly. (I tell people "It doesn't go fast, it doesn't go far, it doesn't carry much load, but to make up for those shortcomings, it doesn't go fast.") It is reasonable as a 'stock' aircraft to be used on fairly primitive strips. Also there are huge numbers of STCs/modification both large and small available due to its ubiquity/numbers. And it has THE name. Cub. It is a classic.
After living with it for well over a decade, what do I not like about it? As I said above (and took crap for before) they are not the easiest to get in and out of. They are not very comfortable. I custom built up a supercub seat with an A&P upholsterer so the seat is quite comfortable, but there is no 'wiggle room'. The rear seat is comfortable (modified) but my wife hates the lack of 'wiggle room' there, too. She won't get in it anymore.
I'll take crap for this, too, but the Champ I owned before this Cub was a lot 'sweeter' flier than my Cub (and I hear/believe my Cub is quit typical). There is nothing 'wrong' with the way it flies, it is just not quite as 'sweet'.
If I was buying an airplane now for this mission, I would buy a Scout for the comfort and access. I am a bit older now (and hope to get older still) and not as flexible as I used to be. Also I have observed/found that airplanes 'buy' pretty easy, and sell a LOT harder (if you aren't giving an absolute 'great deal'). Some guys are great salespeople. I am not. That is why I am not a 'horse trader'. I try to define my mission and buy for the long haul-so it would be a Scout at this point in time.

lc

It came w/ a Horton Stol so it does not compare to the Sportsman, but is still OK. I have flown the plane accross the country twice in the last two years on business and it was very comfortable.

Sportsman with the Wing-x wing extensions* and that p-Ponk.........and you would have a GREAT set up. Good cross country yet slow when you want/need it. And all the comfort you have now.
What you would sacrifice is great visibility-a window on each side of you.
You have to define your priorities. I really like seeing out three sides with great visibility all three ways.

lc

* Hangar restrictions with 40 ft wingspan.

I too would suggest that you consider sticking with the 182, with the possibility of some mods.....UNLESS you find that it just doesn't meet your mission requirements a significant portion of the time.

With the weights you noted, AND camping gear and fuel, you're going to be pushing the envelope on ANY two seat airplane as far as gross weight goes. Find someone with a Husky, a Scout or whatever, and ask them to give you the weight numbers. Do some quick math. Now, of course, that also depends on what you consider to be "camping gear". For example, my idea of "camping gear" generally includes a cooler full of beer, a tent large enough to be comfortable in while the weather improves, etc, etc......if you and your significant other can work with lighter camping gear, the Husky or Scout could work, but again, find a REAL weight and balance from an airplane of the type (NOT the factory empty weight numbers, they are BS from virtually every manufacturer) and do some math. And, be realistic.

Second....How does your wife tolerate flying in the back seat of one of these airplanes? Back seat is a LOT different than front seat.....it's one of the reasons I sold my Super Cub and bought a 170...my wife gets sick in the back seat, and not in the front. This is pretty common. Maybe have her fly behind you in the 182 on a trip and see if that works?

Husky vs Scout:

Husky has significantly better T/O and Climb performance. The only way you can get even close to the same performance in a Scout is to put a Fixed Pitch, climb prop on it, which then means it's SLOW.

Joecub is correct, the Scout has better cabin space and a better heater out of the box. That said, it's easy enough to improve the cabin heat in the Husky. The Scout does have a much roomier back seat as well.

As to getting in and out....the newer Huskys have a very different door opening, and are MUCH easier for us less flexible types to get in and out of.. I've had back surgery, and am NOT flexible, yet I never had problems getting in and out of the FRONT seat of any of the Huskys....and I've flown close to 3500 hours in Husky aircraft. Try one on. That said, the Scout has a different door shape, and it may fit you better.

The statement that all Scouts have metal spars is NOT correct, and you DO NOT want to get involved in a wood spar ACA airplane, due to the really goofy (and unecessary) AD on wood spars in those airplanes. A wood spar Scout is going to be a LOT cheaper than a metal spar one. All Huskys have VERY few AD's, and no real ugly ones.

The Husky will out cruise a Scout, but just barely, if the Scout is equipped with a CS prop. See my first comment. Performance is NO comparison, unless the Scout has a Fixed Pitch.

Quality control has been all over the place at ACA. We received a Scout with the wrong diameter bolts in the strut to spar attach point. A NEW Scout, right out of the factory. Wing was junk. Took forever to get it fixed. Some years of Scouts had NO corrosion proofing in the tail surfaces AT ALL. Tails were junk in a short time. I've flown brand new Scouts that were so mis-rigged that they'd spin out of a flaps up power off stall with the ball in the center. Etc. I think ACA is doing much better these days, but.....

There's a world of difference in useful load between early and later models of both.

I'd stick with the 182, was me.

MTV

by mtv » Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:11 am

I too would suggest that you consider sticking with the 182, with the possibility of some mods.....UNLESS you find that it just doesn't meet your mission requirements a significant portion of the time.

Hmm.... Girlfriend does not dig the back seat, you are correct. You are also correct, I always seem to want to pack a ton more crap than I really need when going camping.

If you have FLAP GAP SEALS --drill them OFF and chuck'em .That KILLS 20% of your lift on takeoff ! If Cessna would have thought that It would make a faster airplane they would have added them at factory !

They did that, on later model 206s. I like my flap gap seals on my P172D. They added 5-6 knots in cruise speed under the same circumstances, and if they cut any lift with the flaps deployed, I can't tell it, so I doubt it's as much as 20%. I use my angle of attack indicator pretty religiously, but before I had it installed, I just used 1.3 Vso from the book, which worked out reasonably well. Now with the AOA, I tend to approach much slower, since I rarely fly at gross. There may be some loss of lift, but truly I can't tell it.

Cary

mtv wrote:<snip> I've flown brand new Scouts that were so mis-rigged that they'd spin out of a flaps up power off stall with the ball in the center. Etc. I think ACA is doing much better these days, but....MTV

I had this experience in an old 7BCM once. It was so strange I did it three times just to be sure.