TxAgfisher, what did you decide and how's it all working out for you?

I'm lucky to have a good 180 but it is coming up on an engine replacement. I fly by myself mostly and am going to think about it before I drop a pile of cash on an engine!

This thread implies the maintenance burden on the 180 is an order of magnitude over the Husky. Not sure how this might be, other than two extra cylinders, both are conventional fixed gear with constant speed propeller?

Albeit one has 50-60 years on the airframe.

MPG on the Husky a bit better but a decent Husky costs more than an early 180.

I like to think a light early 180 is still a poor man’s four seat Super Cub

L18C-95 wrote:This thread implies the maintenance burden on the 180 is an order of magnitude over the Husky. Not sure how this might be, other than two extra cylinders, both are conventional fixed gear with constant speed propeller?

Albeit one has 50-60 years on the airframe.

MPG on the Husky a bit better but a decent Husky costs more than an early 180.

I like to think a light early 180 is still a poor man’s four seat Super Cub

I don't think that a 180 is significantly more expensive to maintain and operate than a Husky.

Any expected difference in cost could be easily overwhelmed by a single major maintenance event.

For instance - a friend had to unexpectedly rebuild a mid-time engine on his Husky recently. And, the O-360 has a reputation for being the most bulletproof motor out there.

The Lycomings are probably more forgiving of ham-fisted operators, sloppy leaning and high temperatures during steep climbs, but big bore Continentals will go the distance if you watch the temps and operate with care.

They both have constant speed props, so no real difference there.

Skywagons require occasional jackscrew work and the tail cone structure has a mandatory service inspection that requires disassembly of the tail. It's required every ten years. The Skywagon tail should come apart more often than every ten in my experience.

The Husky will require new fabric about every twenty years or so, and that is a pretty involved and expensive process.

I wouldn't consider maintenance cost as a pivotal factor when deciding between these two planes.

I run around in my 180 at 7.5-8.5 gph and 100 knots often. That's pretty close to what the Husky does. The Husky will go 115-120 knots, but burning around 10 gph. My 180 will do 130 knots on 12 gph. All of the numbers are really pretty close.

Huskies are notoriously expensive to insure. Why? I don't know. My Husky insurance is $3000/year for 100k hull value and my 180 is 2000/year for 150k hull. The Husky has great manners on the ground.

Low and slow, I prefer the Husky seat to the 180. Visibility is excellent and it is a true pilot's airplane once you get over the springs in the trim system. It's not too bad on trips either.

I’m surprised your insurance is so expensive on your Husky. Other than my 172 I had years ago my Husky has been the cheapest airplane I have ever insured. I use Avemco, I live in SW Michigan. Clean record.

Kurt

I might as well chime in since my Husky and C180 are hangared about 40 yards away from Scolopax's aircraft.

In the Husky, on 31's, I normally cruise at 100 KTAS on 7.5 gph. In the C180, on 8.50's, my normal cruise is 140 to 145 KTAS on 14.0 gph. My C180 has a P-Ponk 0-470-50 engine where as Scolopax's C180 has the 0-470. The P-Ponk definitely uses more fuel than the original 0-470 at a particular power setting.

The Husky is only 6 years old and it gets flown about 100 hours annually. To date, my maintenance costs have been very nominal. Annual inspections typically cost around $600.00. The C180 is almost 50 years old, also flown about 100 hours annually, and requires more periodic maintenance. Usually it's just minor irritations like leaking o-rings or gaskets, wonky electrics, etc. But, there are a few big items that you to keep on top of, particularly the fuel system, the bladders and the trim system.

It certainly costs more to operate the C180 than the Husky. However, if the C180 has been well maintained, it is not a lot more expensive than the Husky.

I'll agree with Scolopax that for flying low and slow, the Husky is an excellent choice. The Husky is a true pilot's aircraft with excellent control response and visibility. Personally, I don't understand the complaints about the trim system - just figure it out and get on with life. I have flown several long, multi-day cross country flights in the Husky with the wife in the back. It's certainly more comfortable than doing the trip in a Cub, but the C180 is a much better long distance traveling machine. Need to haul the wife and 300 lbs of camping gear for the weekend - better keep the Skywagon. The Husky will haul it, but you'll need the cargo pod to get it in!

Insurance costs are interesting. I have about 500 hours in the Husky and a couple thousand hours in various C180/C185 aircraft. The Husky is insured at $256,000 hull value for $1,590.00 annually. The C180 is insured at $185,000 hull value for $2,850.00 annually. When I queried the higher premium for the C180, I was told that replacement parts are so costly for the C180 that a relatively minor accident would probably be considered a total loss. These premiums have both actually been slightly reduced for 2020 (AVEMCO).

Windknot,

I think your comparison of the Husky and 180 is a fair one. I too don’t mind the Husky trim, though the newest Huskys have a trim tab.

But, To be accurate, two engines operated at the “same power setting” should burn close to the same fuel, assuming they’re properly leaned. A 280 hp RATED engine, operated at 180 hp will consume the same fuel as a 230 hp rated engine operated at 180 hp, in other words.

Now, comparing rpm and MP settings on different engines is pretty meaningless.

MTV

There is nothing wrong with the old trim system. It is stone simple, light weight and easy to use, no jack screws, teleflex cables, hinges and so on. It works great! I have never had a problem with it and still don't. The new system may be nice, I don't know because I haven’t flown it but to say the old system is bad or a minus on a great airplane is not true.

Kurt

slowmover wrote:TxAgfisher, what did you decide and how's it all working out for you?

I'm lucky to have a good 180 but it is coming up on an engine replacement. I fly by myself mostly and am going to think about it before I drop a pile of cash on an engine!

Hey, sorry haven’t been on here in a while. I decided to keep the Wagon. Just gutted the panel and ditched all the IFR for a simple VFR panel and did ADSB.

I just couldn’t get around spending the same money for a slower, less comfortable airplane to only gain 100’ on TO/landing.

The above comments on maintenance being similar... maybe if you had the same problem but a 55 year old airplane is going to inherently have more problems than a 10 year old airplane.

So, I found myself Googling Super Cub vs Husky and it brought me here… to a post I started on this very forum.

I have a local (ish) guy wanting to swap my Wagon for a Husky A1-C… pause, back story is I sold the Wagon and bought a Super Cub (long story) then sold the Cub and bought another Wagon (another long story lol!) and now I’m back to realizing I don’t really need 4 seats and miss the Cub. I reread the whole thread and feel like my estimation of it being a 2 place Maule is accurate.

MTV, I’ll probably send you a PM in the next couple days and pick your brain.

TxAgfisher wrote:So, I found myself Googling Super Cub vs Husky and it brought me here… to a post I started on this very forum.

I have a local (ish) guy wanting to swap my Wagon for a Husky A1-C… pause, back story is I sold the Wagon and bought a Super Cub (long story) then sold the Cub and bought another Wagon (another long story lol!) and now I’m back to realizing I don’t really need 4 seats and miss the Cub. I reread the whole thread and feel like my estimation of it being a 2 place Maule is accurate.

MTV, I’ll probably send you a PM in the next couple days and pick your brain.

Fire away.

MTV

Took this picture yesterday, nothing unusual about it, seems like most of the grocery stores and restaurants in my area have them. BUT....it was on the Aviat plant! Let's hope it was for a floor sweeper, and not a avionics tech. Whatever the initial position is, it would/could be quite an opportunity for the right person.

I bought a Husky several years ago and took it to the backcountry in Idaho and landed everywhere but Simmonds. Absolutely love the bird. Its a 99 A1B and I love it. You where it like a go cart and can do anything you dream of. SO easy to fly. But faster than a cub by far.
I also owned a 182 RG at the time and sold it after I bought a 1955 180. I wanted the light weight model (53-59). Really shocked how well the bird performs when I compare it to the Husky. When you are on the numbers its is really close when you think about backcountry flying and not competition. I just put a XP470 and new Hartzel prop and updates the dash with Glass. Plus Sportsman and baby bush and 31" tires. Now the TAS is 165 average at 75% and climbs at 1900 fpm. Amazing bird. bu tI still love the Husky for what it can drop into in a second. Such an honest bird.

Truth is, if I lived close to my playground I would probably own a Husky, but if I lived a long way off I would take the 180.

This thread has definitely helped me start to clarify my search for a low and slow airplane so thank you all. We've gotten far enough along that our old bird is up for sale and I'm scheduled to visit with Steve at Husky up in Afton early next week and will be getting a Cubcrafter ride shortly thereafter. I do have a question for the group ahead of that trip... what would you want to ask Aviat that hasn't been already been discussed?

On my list so far is to experience the difference between the two trim systems and the empirical difference the Powerflow makes on the A1-C-180. One of the planes I'm looking at specifically has the new trim system and one doesn't so I'm curious there.

keikflyer wrote:This thread has definitely helped me start to clarify my search for a low and slow airplane so thank you all. We've gotten far enough along that our old bird is up for sale and I'm scheduled to visit with Steve at Husky up in Afton early next week and will be getting a Cubcrafter ride shortly thereafter. I do have a question for the group ahead of that trip... what would you want to ask Aviat that hasn't been already been discussed?

On my list so far is to experience the difference between the two trim systems and the empirical difference the Powerflow makes on the A1-C-180. One of the planes I'm looking at specifically has the new trim system and one doesn't so I'm curious there.

If you ever want to go on skis make sure the plane you buy has the right gear legs on it. The legs can't be modified and you have to buy the proper legs from Aviat for certain brands of skis.

A1Skinner wrote:

keikflyer wrote:This thread has definitely helped me start to clarify my search for a low and slow airplane so thank you all. We've gotten far enough along that our old bird is up for sale and I'm scheduled to visit with Steve at Husky up in Afton early next week and will be getting a Cubcrafter ride shortly thereafter. I do have a question for the group ahead of that trip... what would you want to ask Aviat that hasn't been already been discussed?

On my list so far is to experience the difference between the two trim systems and the empirical difference the Powerflow makes on the A1-C-180. One of the planes I'm looking at specifically has the new trim system and one doesn't so I'm curious there.

If you ever want to go on skis make sure the plane you buy has the right gear legs on it. The less can't be modified and you have to buy the proper legs from Aviat.

Actually, that depends on the skis. I've put skis on three different Huskys, and only one required modification of the gear, and that was easy.

MTV

mtv wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:

keikflyer wrote:This thread has definitely helped me start to clarify my search for a low and slow airplane so thank you all. We've gotten far enough along that our old bird is up for sale and I'm scheduled to visit with Steve at Husky up in Afton early next week and will be getting a Cubcrafter ride shortly thereafter. I do have a question for the group ahead of that trip... what would you want to ask Aviat that hasn't been already been discussed?

On my list so far is to experience the difference between the two trim systems and the empirical difference the Powerflow makes on the A1-C-180. One of the planes I'm looking at specifically has the new trim system and one doesn't so I'm curious there.

If you ever want to go on skis make sure the plane you buy has the right gear legs on it. The less can't be modified and you have to buy the proper legs from Aviat.

Actually, that depends on the skis. I've put skis on three different Huskys, and only one required modification of the gear, and that was easy.

MTV

Very interesting. For Aeroskis they sell a whole different gear, and when I had their parts person on the phone they asked fir the ski type as the gear was different for each ski. Maybe we were mistaken. But definitely worth looking into if skis are on your future.

You must be talking about the Aero Ski 2800 "Semi Retractable" skis?? Those do require an attach point both inside and outside the axle stub. We had an A-1 Husky on those skis. Adapting those skis to that Husky was the same as doing so with a Super Cub.....the gear is virtually identical.

The Rosti Fernandez Skis require the same attachment. We did that on two Huskys , and the modification was done locally. It really was no big deal.

As far as straight skis, those all just slide on the axles like any other plane, no modifications required, other than the tabs for cables.

I ran Wipline (nee: Fluidyne) 2200 retractable skis on one Husky. Again, the mods to attach those skis were done in Anchorage, with parts from Wipaire. Again, no big deal.

So, maybe there's a ski out there that requires different gear, but frankly, I think someone was either trying to get you to buy landing gear or they were blowing smoke.

MTV

mtv wrote:You must be talking about the Aero Ski 2800 "Semi Retractable" skis?? Those do require an attach point both inside and outside the axle stub. We had an A-1 Husky on those skis. Adapting those skis to that Husky was the same as doing so with a Super Cub.....the gear is virtually identical.

The Rosti Fernandez Skis require the same attachment. We did that on two Huskys , and the modification was done locally. It really was no big deal.

As far as straight skis, those all just slide on the axles like any other plane, no modifications required, other than the tabs for cables.

I ran Wipline (nee: Fluidyne) 2200 retractable skis on one Husky. Again, the mods to attach those skis were done in Anchorage, with parts from Wipaire. Again, no big deal.

So, maybe there's a ski out there that requires different gear, but frankly, I think someone was either trying to get you to buy landing gear or they were blowing smoke.

MTV

Well u was dealing right with Aviat. So maybe they were just trying to sell gear legs. But since you are always preaching STCs and legalities, there is no way to legally modify the gear leg for the Aeroski without buy the leg. Aviation no Aeroski sells the parts to modify them. Maybe they used to, but not anymore. So unless you field approve the mod they aren't legal without buying the legs from Aviat...

A1Skinner wrote:

mtv wrote:You must be talking about the Aero Ski 2800 "Semi Retractable" skis?? Those do require an attach point both inside and outside the axle stub. We had an A-1 Husky on those skis. Adapting those skis to that Husky was the same as doing so with a Super Cub.....the gear is virtually identical.

The Rosti Fernandez Skis require the same attachment. We did that on two Huskys , and the modification was done locally. It really was no big deal.

As far as straight skis, those all just slide on the axles like any other plane, no modifications required, other than the tabs for cables.

I ran Wipline (nee: Fluidyne) 2200 retractable skis on one Husky. Again, the mods to attach those skis were done in Anchorage, with parts from Wipaire. Again, no big deal.

So, maybe there's a ski out there that requires different gear, but frankly, I think someone was either trying to get you to buy landing gear or they were blowing smoke.

MTV

Well u was dealing right with Aviat. So maybe they were just trying to sell gear legs. But since you are always preaching STCs and legalities, there is no way to legally modify the gear leg for the Aeroski without buy the leg. Aviation no Aeroski sells the parts to modify them. Maybe they used to, but not anymore. So unless you field approve the mod they aren't legal without buying the legs from Aviat...

The Husky’s MTV used to fly on skis were government public use aircraft, no STC required. I would imagine a field approval could be obtained in the states with some or a lot of effort, no idea about Canada. The Trick Air ski’s STC calls for welding the attach fittings on to the gear legs.

Kurt

Makes sense Kurt, that's why they were able to do the mod themselves. In Canada it's no fly, and from my understanding of field approvals, they are nearly impossible to get for something that's STCd. The R2800 is actually on the TC so I imagine a field approval would be even harder to get for that.
But in the end I just wanted to help the fellow out when he asked if there's anything else he should ask about. To le that would be something important to ask as I like skis, and the R2800 is a fairly affordable option if it weren't for needing to buy different gear.