DBI wrote:

by mtv » Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:11 am

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.

We traded our straight tail 182 for a Husky. However, I love the Husky, but my wife hates flying in the back seat. Consequently, since I am not willing to sell my Husky, we are going to buy a second plane for my wife (probably a factory built Kitfox). If tandum is an issue with your SO, it will only become more so as time goes by. Our 182 was a great airplane with bush tires, bush Stol, extended baggage and removed rear seats. I couldn't take it all the places that I take the Husky, but it sure didn't have any problem with a 1,200 foot strip. The Husky is a bit difficult to get in and out of for a big guy, but frankly I find it quite comfortable (I'm 6'1" and 215). It actually feels good to be wearing the airplane during close to the ground operations. The Husky is a bit limited on baggage area, but we added a cargo pod and this, at the expense of a little speed, has really helped.

I don't have experience in the Scout. There are a few of them up here and they are great airplanes, but I'd sure stay away from those with wood spars. I considered buying a Scout, but am happy with my choice of a Husky. The Cub is ubiquitous up here, but the Husky is making inroads -- and that 182 was nice for what we were doing with it. I also used to own a Maule, and a 172 with an O-180 would be a nice option for you as well. Another good option is the 170B with an O-360 and CS prop. I really liked that airplane, and it would probably fit your flight profile quite nicely.

Nizina

DBI,
If your wife gets sick in the back seat, put her in the front seat when you travel together, and fly from the back. Much more comfortable anyway.
In regards to keeping your 182, I have to tell you, my buddy recently tasked me with keeping his C-90/J-3 lubed up by occasionally flying it for him. My 170 is now sitting in the hangar collecting dust. The center line stick & rudder is just so addicting, low and slow door open fun!
It's been a long time since I have flown a Scout, and never have flown a Husky yet, but the nicest of all Cub's that I have ever flown has been the Carbon Cub. Have you considered that? I know, very $$$$$. But OH so sweet!

I owned a super cub for 150-200 hours. I have only flown a Husky once. I have had two scouts (7,000 hrs worth), and I like them. I am 6ft 5in.

I don't know where you got that scouts cost more? I have always thought that the Husky was $50,000 more on the new market, and almost that same margin on the late model used market. Same engines and props too. I will say the Husky may out perform slightly, if heavy loaded, maybe? Lightly loaded with one pilot, we have had races. Same take-off. Same time to climb. Wing tip to wing tip, when flat out.

NOTE: these Husky experiences were not with their new wing.

I love my 2004 Husky. I have no problems getting in and out. Once your are shown how to do it property it becomes a none issue - for me at least. I am 5'10'' at 168.

I have not carried many passengers. So I do not get much feedback on what the back seat ride is like. I think getting in and out of the back would be more difficult but I never practice getting back there.

The Husky is rock solid in slow flight. It is very comfortable to fly in canyons. The power off stall is so benign it's almost unbelievable.

I have about 400 hours in my Husky and I am over any trim issues. It takes a bit of getting used to but, once you get it, you've got it.

The Husky wheel lands nicely. When three-pointing, you can land very short. When I want to be short, I get on the breaks VERY hard. I have never felt like I was going to nose over. Just keep the stick back and break HARD. You can get stopped just like that.

Taking off short is a non-issue. You can use 30 degrees flap, full power and she climbs out in almost a level attitude. Visibility on climb out is fantastic. More and more, I start my roll with 10 degrees and pull on 30 while up on the mains.
This is an easy technique to master.

I have not flown in a Scout or any of the similar variants. I just hate to have anyone overlook the Husky. It is built very solidly. I am very happy with mine.

Lotsa great feedback here. I just have to, ah, weigh in on the useable load issue. Wife, self and gear are about 425 and we couldn't make that work with any sort of fuel in either the Scout or Husky when we were shopping for a new option last summer, space ranger calculator wouldn't come up with the right numbers. Check specs!
FZ

flyingzebra wrote:Lotsa great feedback here. I just have to, ah, weigh in on the useable load issue. Wife, self and gear are about 425 and we couldn't make that work with any sort of fuel in either the Scout or Husky when we were shopping for a new option last summer, space ranger calculator wouldn't come up with the right numbers. Check specs!
FZ

Depends what model year, at least with Huskys.

A new A 1C is going to have around an 800 to 850 useful load.

An A 1B is going to be close to 200 pounds less, and an A 1 will be even less. They have gotten heavier with succeeding model years, but GW has gone up. Best Husky I've flown was the serial number 1 A 1B. Empty weight was 1260, light for a Husky, and that was on Bushwheels.

Scouts are heavy also. As I noted before, find some REAL numbers from a real airplane and do the math.

Then again, it's been my experience that the "required" load for a particular mission always grows as the available useful load increases......usually to about 150 pounds more than the useful load of the airplane.

I concluded many years ago that my co-workers could fill a 747 with "camp gear" for a week in the woods.

As I noted before, though, if Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody goin to be happy.

MTV

MTV

Pay up your Aopa fees,and you may have to forget about the scout.
I am also looking at the cub crafters line of planes(carbon cub) for me
I think I would stay with the Cessna you have,not ideal for all,but nothing is
1200feet shouldn't be a problem
Good luck,Chuck

How much would you like to get for your 182 DBI?

Mike

mtv wrote:As I noted before, though, if Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody goin to be happy.

MTV

My wife really dislikes the rear seat and gets a little queasy back there on XC. This is about the most important consideration if you like your companion to go with you, or if you feel that their buy-in to the plane ownership thing is required.

My wife really dislikes the rear seat and gets a little queasy back there on XC. This is about the most important consideration if you like your companion to go with you, or if you feel that their buy-in to the plane ownership thing is required

.....as suggested earlier on the topic-give her the best seat in the plane, and you take the cheap seat......
First class is up front for a reason.

My wife will only fly with me if she likes the destination......
And the Cub is not really a 'destination' type of airplane.
So I'm not sure it matters in my case.

lc

mtv wrote: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.

+1
That was a killer for me, tandem seating is not the same.

Im on my third Scout now. Grew up flying my dads SuperCub, and still love them. I use the Scout some for business, and need the extra speed. The last cub I flew was on 31 bushwheels, and was about an 85 mph plane, while the Scout will economy cruise at about 105 on the 31s, faster if you want to stuff the fuel thru it. Have a bit of Husky time, and have flown about with a few more. Huskies are better performers in takeoff, a tick better in cruise at same settings, will land a lot shorter in the right hands. I have to really work to get the Scout stopped in 400 ft no wind. Cub or Husky must be at least 100 less than that. The stall is higher on the Scout. Its the one thing I dont like, the stall. Most of the modern Scouts are north of 1400 empty wt, which directly affects the stall. My 98 has about a 760 useful, the 1975 wood spar Scout was 800, because it was lighter. The alum spar birds are 5 mph faster than the plank spar birds. The perception in the market is the plank spars are worth less, and it doesnt look like that is going to change. My 75 Scout had 4000 hrs, with hardly a loose nail in the 500 hrs I flew it.

I put the 3 blade MT on the latest Scout. It gained me a solid 5 mph cruise bump over the 2 blade MT on my other Scout. Not sure it climbs as well, my rear end is telling me the promised bump in climb is not there. Still evaluating that one. The 3 blade is turbine smooth, and quieter. Mine has been on a diet, with the MT prop, hawker battery, threw away the carpet, we have lost about 25 lbs so far.
I think a really great project would be to work with ACA on a new Denali Scout to make it really light. Lose the carpet, the 59 caddy interior and seats. Really work to keep the weight down. I think that plane with the 210 Lyc would be kick ass. HMM, might be a fun winter project, lets see what the little woman has to say...

Jim

Littlecub wrote:.....as suggested earlier on the topic-give her the best seat in the plane, and you take the cheap seat......
First class is up front for a reason.

Have thought a lot about that, but there are quite a few PIC functions that can only be performed from the front seat, like engine stuff. I'd have to teach her how to run the transponder and radio and GPS and stuff. None of that is difficult, but it takes a little time and commitment from the passenger.

^^^^Oh.
Whazat stuff?

My Cub is very basic. If I stay below 5000 ft or so I don't even lean it.
Carb heat can only be reached from the front, and shut off at the hangar with the mixture is ez....
It is nice to keep an eye on oil pressure and then temps in the summer.....
The main thing I have my front passengers watch out for is cell towers and other traffic (frequently crop dusters).
But you do fly in a different traffic/controlled airspace environment-so I am going to defer to your point..

lc

DBI,

Where in the bitteroot are you moving? I have two brothers that live in Hamiton and one flys a '58 182. He keeps it at Ravalli (6S5) but operates it all the time out of our cabin stip up the West Fork. 1200' one way strip. His engine is a stock O470L and he has the sportsman STOL on it. I don't think there are many places he can't take that thing.

I relate this because I am with MTV and Bill on this... Stick with the 182 and you will have a beast that can haul the kitchen sink and take you nearly anywhere. With your -50 you should have no problem operating out of 1200' (assuming you don't have monstrous trees on both ends.

Where is your place? We know just about every strip up there.

Wife didn't care for the back seat of my Champ, but loves the back seat of our '05 Husky. Says it's her favorite plane .

As MTV hints, either a minor fix (patching gaps in muff) or, better yet, installing a PowerFlow exhaust makes the Husky's heater excellent - - you could roast hod dogs with it post PowerFlow install. I'm 6'1" 170, and 67 years non-flexible, getting in and out is no problem once you learn the trick. Comfort, front or back is great with the stock OregonAero seats.

The Husky is without a doubt the most fun of any airplane I've owned or flown. I appreciate the broad speed envelope, slow enough to get in short (easy less than 400' even up high, 4800 feet AGL, and hot where I live). And fast enough for longer trips with a low power cruise, 1950 rpm and 21" MP burning less than 6 gph, netting a solid 105 knots with 26" rubber. Plus more than 50 gallons (mine holds 54) of fuel gives the plane long legs.

Heading out camping, it's easy to load over gross if you carry full fuel - I weigh everything.

by Darinh » Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:29 pm

DBI,

Where in the bitteroot are you moving? I have two brothers that live in Hamiton and one flys a '58 182. He keeps it at Ravalli (6S5) but operates it all the time out of our cabin stip up the West Fork. 1200' one way strip. His engine is a stock O470L and he has the sportsman STOL on it. I don't think there are many places he can't take that thing.

I relate this because I am with MTV and Bill on this... Stick with the 182 and you will have a beast that can haul the kitchen sink and take you nearly anywhere. With your -50 you should have no problem operating out of 1200' (assuming you don't have monstrous trees on both ends.

Where is your place? We know just about every strip up there.

I am currently living in Idaho Falls, working in Oak Ridge, TN and also currently building a new home and moving to the Bitterroot Valley.

My property is located about 3 miles south of the Stevensville airport and maybe slightly east on the bench. No established strip yet, just my pasture. I have enjoyed some stuff about east Tennessee and certainly the people but can't wait to close up here and get back west, even with the smoke!

I don't like Cub knock-offs in a general way. Bellanca didn't either.

The original idea for a Piper Cub was an afforadable ride for a common guy in the country. The new America .... let's ripoff Piper and their work and sell it for $ 250K. Makes me laugh. No wonder China is kicking our a$$.

What's your point? The Scout is an inevitable evolution of the early Champs, not a copy of a Cub. And, it's NOT a Cub. As noted by someone here, the stall characteristics of the ACA wing are very different from a Cub.

Frank Christiansen approached Piper about purchasing the Super Cub TC to put it back in production. New Piper obviously wasn't interested in building Cubs any more. They offered to sell him the TC, but only if he accepted the entire liability tail for ALL Cubs, even Piper built ones. Duh. So, he and an engineer designed the Husky, which is really quite different from the Cub in many many ways.

Now, Cub Crafters version of the "Top Cub"....that's a direct knock off of the Super Cub, and no apologies. Since New Piper has zero interest in building Cubs these days, and since CC got their own TC (at significant effort and expense) what's wrong with someone building new Cubs?? Same goes for the LSA's, etc.

To suggest that any high wing tandem seat airplane is a knock off of the Cub is pretty much nonsense.

As to cost, perhaps you should look into what it takes to produce a CERTIFIED airplane these days........I don't think any of these guys is getting rich. As is generally the case, the way to make a small fortune in aviation is to start with a large fortune......

MTV

mtv wrote:What's your point? The Scout is an inevitable evolution of the early Champs, not a copy of a Cub. And, it's NOT a Cub. As noted by someone here, the stall characteristics of the ACA wing are very different from a Cub.

Frank Christiansen approached Piper about purchasing the Super Cub TC to put it back in production. New Piper obviously wasn't interested in building Cubs any more. They offered to sell him the TC, but only if he accepted the entire liability tail for ALL Cubs, even Piper built ones. Duh. So, he and an engineer designed the Husky, which is really quite different from the Cub in many many ways.

Now, Cub Crafters version of the "Top Cub"....that's a direct knock off of the Super Cub, and no apologies. Since New Piper has zero interest in building Cubs these days, and since CC got their own TC (at significant effort and expense) what's wrong with someone building new Cubs?? Same goes for the LSA's, etc.

To suggest that any high wing tandem seat airplane is a knock off of the Cub is pretty much nonsense.

As to cost, perhaps you should look into what it takes to produce a CERTIFIED airplane these days........I don't think any of these guys is getting rich. As is generally the case, the way to make a small fortune in aviation is to start with a large fortune......

MTV

I don't want to get into any arguments neither. I can't see huge profits being made neither. Think about the labor, materials and components alone. That's got to add up close to $100k+ on a Scout for example. I dunno