Bush Taildraggers... The guide

M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,631
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
I just checked the last main, bush-oriented tandem taildragger off of my list. I've now flown American Champion Scout, Aviat Husky, Piper Supercub, and CubCrafters Sportcub - FX cub - XCub.

Rounding out last place...

#4 Cubcrafters planes.



#3 Piper Supercub

This plane is most certainly the OG bush plane. The one I flew was the last model year of production and an immaculately kept airplane. It flew okay, the control harmony was decent but it still didn't feel all that nice, they felt off and like something was missing from tying it all together. Heel brakes are really awful, yeah yeah yeah you get used to them, but really no other planes have them so why should I have to get used to them? This plane is considered the gold standard, and it's nice but it really doesn't live up to the hype in my opinion. It's kind of like a wrangler, yeah it's good at what it does, and yeah everyone has one, but it's just not special and it doesn't do much all that well. Yeah it would be a useful tool, but there wasn't much that I really loved about it, it wasn't particularly fun to fly or lovable in anyway to me. Nothing stood out.

#2 American Champion/Bellanca Scout

The Scout is certainly the most undervalued and underrated plane on the list. The control harmony is largely excellent except for the rudder, which is incredibly touchy. But with that touchyness comes a huge amount of authority which is useful when flying in heavy crosswinds. It has a pedigree of aerobatics and as such the controls are great. The cockpit is very easy to get into in comparison to the cub-style planes. The visibility is just superb, both over the nose and out the sides, they just got this part of the plane right. I'd say the Scout probably has the worst STOL characteristics of the bunch, but that's not really saying much considering it's still outstanding as a STOL plane. It doesn't have the big fat wing that likes to mush into anything including stalls so you do need to watch your speed more on final than you would with a Cub-wing. The cockpit is well laid out and factory support is excellent. They're certainly the fastest cruising plane in the bunch and with something like an 80 gallon tank which is best in class you can go some serious distance. This is the plane I'd most rather take into IFR conditions, bust out at minimums, cancel IFR and then go land at a farm strip. It's just supremely stable and feels like you can trust it. It has spring gear, which unlike my Skywagon, actually isn't very springy. It's very forgiving and far easier to maintain than the cub-like gear. You can make excellent and precise landings in the Scout which is critical for backcountry.

The Scout is based on an excellent airframe that they then adapted to the backcountry, and there's nothing wrong with that.

#1 Aviat Husky

Now for first place, and the plane I flew today. I went into today's flight expecting another Supercub flight or another cubcrafters plane... and wow was I wrong and blown away. @GRG55 did it right. Husky claims that they took all of the good parts of a supercub and none of the bad. I was dubious of that claim... until I got into the plane. Unlike the other planes, I fit, very comfortably and very well even though I'm 5'7". I didn't need seat adjustments, I just fit in the airplane. The CFI I flew with was 6' and he also fit comfortably without seat adjustment or anything. I don't know how they did it but it's just a super ergonomic plane to sit in regardless of your height. Then we went to takeoff, and WOW is the STOL performance good, perhaps as good as cubcrafters planes. Then we got into the air and the plane is SOLID. It feels substantial. It feels as stable as my Skywagon, but as nimble as a Decathlon. It feels ENGINEERED. There's a feeling you get when you get into these type of planes that you're in a bit of a kite and it's usually rattly and unrefined... but not the Husky. Somehow they NAILED the cross between luxury/Comfort and ruggedness. I felt like it'd be stable and secure on the bumpiest of days WITHOUT detracting at all from the fun of flying a light bush plane. Low and slow was still a blast. They nailed the control harmony, even the rudder was perfect. The trim uses springs, which my CFI hates, but I got used to relatively quickly. I like that the trim is controlled by a wheel, not by a lever. The flaps are down at your feet like they are in a 7GCBC or 8GCBC, which I prefer, but that's personal preference.

It was a great plane and while I won't give up my Skywagon for it, it embodied exactly what I always dreamed a supercub would be like. If I was in the market for a tandem bush plane, and one day I might be, I would absolutely get a Husky.



Note - These are just my opinions, I haven't been paid by anyone to say these things. JMNSHO based on my experience as a Skywagon owner and backcountry flying enthusiast.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20200902_175959.jpg
    IMG_20200902_175959.jpg
    283.8 KB · Views: 314
  • 118070057_10157066586971621_693146994774721189_o.jpg
    118070057_10157066586971621_693146994774721189_o.jpg
    199.6 KB · Views: 320
Last edited:
Where’s the Maule? Or for the truly hardcore, what about a Marchetti 1019, DHC-2, or PC6 Porter? Heck show me an AN2 review and I’m in.
 
Maule about rounds out the currently available certified “Bush” planes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I really liked my relatively tiny Husky time. It’s a cool airplane.
 
:popcorn:

Oh oh...:eek:
This should be even more entertaining than the high wing vs low wing debate, or the "Is there a finer airplane than a Cirrus with a red handle?" discussions. :D

As for the Husky, it's a damn fine airplane for the mission (but I am a biased owner), and there's a few more Husky owners on this forum including @Kent Wien (who I believe has a brother which makes it a 2 Husky family). Over on the Husky forum there's a former Cirrus owner who switched planes to a Husky A-1B and is seriously active in the NE.

The power to weight of my A-1 is higher than any other airplane I've owned. Even off the higher altitude strips out west where I live the thing seems to be levitating instead of taking-off, especially with a full flaps. Just a blast. But I am never going to be one of those back-country super STOL pilots flying at the edge of the max performance envelope. The Husky just does everything I want it to do really, really well. And it's the most fun to fly airplane I've ever owned.
 
Last edited:
Funny, I’ve flown them all too and I feel that the Husky was the most miserable of the lot. The one thing I will give it credit for however would be legroom. The Cub comes up a bit short in this department, especially on long trips.

Ive heard the newer ones are improved. Perhaps I’d like one of those better if I gave it another shot.
 
Geosync said:
Where’s the Maule? Or for the truly hardcore, what about a Marchetti 1019, DHC-2, or PC6 Porter? Heck show me an AN2 review and I’m in.
Click to expand...

Steven Untet said:
Maule about rounds out the currently available certified “Bush” planes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I've flown maules, but the writeup was limited to certified tandem bush taildraggers. Comparing bigger planes isn't really much of a comparison. Even a maule and a 180 have different missions, but the planes I compared all directly compete with each other.
 
Pireps of short flights in a variety of planes by a Cessna driver? No surprise by the comments. Predictable for the most part. It takes time on type to be good in any airplane. Lacking time the reviewer will prefer what's most familiar and comfortable. That list is upside down in my book.
 
Carbon cub can land in mudholes with the best of them and keep up with my Mooney. Pretty impressive in the backcountry-challenged book of Steingar.
 
Stewartb said:
Pireps of short flights in a variety of planes by a Cessna driver? No surprise by the comments. Predictable for the most part. It takes time on type to be good in any airplane. Lacking time the reviewer will prefer what's most familiar and comfortable.
Click to expand...
No disagreement there. The Husky & Scout felt most like my Cessna, which is a positive in my book. And I'm low time in supercubs and Husky's (2-5 hours). About 30 hours in cubcrafter's planes, and 50-70 in Scout/Citabria/Decathlon.

Then again this is just an opinion write-up. It may differ for others, but based on my experience and what I value in planes, that's my ranking.

And this is PoA, so I fully expect everyone to have the exact opposite opinion to what any OP posts :D.
 
Last edited:
Just pointing out the obvious. It takes hundreds of hours in any Cub type to achieve a decent level of proficiency. Flying slow isn't instinctive to a Cessna pilot and nobody flies Cubs to go fast. My own Cub doubles down on that and I recognize my own shortcomings every time I fly it. But I'm starting to get the hang of it.
 
Flying qualities are subjective. My impressions are pretty much opposite of yours. I owned a 185 and a Bellanca Scout for 20 + years in Alaska. I also flew Supercubs quite a bit. No time in a Husky or Carbon Cub. I loved my Scout and put 1200 or so hours on it, but, while it is a capable backcountry aircraft, it is nowhere in the same league as a Cub in most important ways, for bush flying. Cub controls are extremely light, responsive, and harmonious, compared to a Scout. STOL performance and load capacity of the Cub are far better. The Scout is faster and a bit roomier than a cub, but it is not aerobatic (but maybe you were just saying that a Citabria is, and a Scout has the same fuselage...). Bottom line: I always wanted a Cub, but I got a great deal on the Scout and for most of my missions it worked fine... I've never seen an Alaska hunting guide using a Scout to access tough backcountry. They pretty much all use Cubs.

Thanks for the writeup. If I decide to buy a toy in my upcoming retirement, I'll definitely give the Husky a test flight. Always wanted to anyway.
 
Geosync said:
Where’s the Maule? Or for the truly hardcore, what about a Marchetti 1019, DHC-2, or PC6 Porter?
Click to expand...
I'll 2nd the Porter. If you like the Supercub, you'll love the Porter, at least the Pratt Whitney equipped versions. Does everything like a Supercub on steroids.
 
Nice review thank you.

I would probably put he Scout #1 and the Husky #2, but that is just because I think the Scout has a bit more utility. Larger cabin space, Probably more useful Load?. I also like the extra range and speed.

But these are just personal preferences and mostly depends up how you want to use the airplane. If you really want the Ultra short field performer the Husky is the better choice over the Scout. But there are very few places you can take Husky and not a Scout.

Brian
 
You guys flown them at gross? That's how real "bush" planes earn their living. Cubs fly the same light or heavy. Like magic.
 
Great review, and thanks @GRG55 for the mention. Yep, after hearing just how wonderful the Husky was from my brother Kurt, (who has owned just about everything in the category, including an Arctic Tern) I finally broke down and bought a Husky last year. I swear it was a total coincidence that it nearly matches my brother’s color scheme.

A few things I really like about the Husky are:

I love the ailerons. They feel as if they’re hydraulically actuated. So smooth, responsive and nimble.

It’s really pitch stable. I can go for a number of minutes in cruise without touching anything and it just holds altitude nicely. And I do like the trim system. On the ground, I know by feel where I’m trimmed.

It’s amazingly efficient for the category. I may have slowed it down a few knots by installing a belly pod, but when leaned, we cruise around at 100 knots and 7.5 gph or so. The composite props help in this department as does the wing design.

It feels refined. Solid.

52 gallons of fuel standard. Very nice useful load of 900 pounds for a C model.

And I love knowing that if it’s a charted airport, I can get in and out of it without much of a worry.

Kurt’s is a bit faster, but I can usually chase him down:

C77CD8B3-E002-47E6-8C0C-E7976C5F2391.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
You guys flown them at gross? That's how real "bush" planes earn their living. Cubs fly the same light or heavy. Like magic.
Click to expand...

That's one of the things I really enjoy about the Husky. I have an A-1. The original version Husky with the lowest gross and useful load. A friend of mine with several thousand hours of taildragger time agreed to ferry it home with me after I bought it. Our first fuel stop was Cheyenne. We left there in the early afternoon on a 105 F day with full tanks (52 gallons), two guys (I am 6'4" and a svelte 240ish lbs) and our two roll-ons and some part & tools in the baggage bin (don't do the math). I could not believe how fast that thing came off the ground and how stable, solid and precise the controls felt when it was that heavy. He told me it would be like that. It was unlike anything I had ever flown before.

Try that stunt in any Piper Cherokee derivative and you'll be wallowing through the air wondering if the yoke is connected to any flight surface, especially in the roll axis.
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
Just pointing out the obvious. It takes hundreds of hours in any Cub type to achieve a decent level of proficiency. Flying slow isn't instinctive to a Cessna pilot and nobody flies Cubs to go fast. My own Cub doubles down on that and I recognize my own shortcomings every time I fly it. But I'm starting to get the hang of it.
Click to expand...

^^^This.
I feel like I'll be at just stage 1 of the learning curve after 200 hours wearing the plane. I wish I had started this when I was 20.
 
GRG55 said:
That's one of the things I really enjoy about the Husky. I have an A-1. The original version Husky with the lowest gross and useful load. A friend of mine with several thousand hours of taildragger time agreed to ferry it home with me after I bought it. Our first fuel stop was Cheyenne. We left there in the early afternoon on a 105 F day with full tanks (52 gallons), two guys (I am 6'4" and a svelte 240ish lbs) and our two roll-ons and some part & tools in the baggage bin (don't do the math). I could not believe how fast that thing came off the ground and how stable, solid and precise the controls felt when it was that heavy. He told me it would be like that. It was unlike anything I had ever flown before.

Try that stunt in any Piper Cherokee derivative and you'll be wallowing through the air wondering if the yoke is connected to any flight surface, especially in the roll axis.
Click to expand...
Why do you think they put the Cub wing on the Aztec
 
GRG55 said:
That's one of the things I really enjoy about the Husky. I have an A-1. The original version Husky with the lowest gross and useful load. A friend of mine with several thousand hours of taildragger time agreed to ferry it home with me after I bought it. Our first fuel stop was Cheyenne. We left there in the early afternoon on a 105 F day with full tanks (52 gallons), two guys (I am 6'4" and a svelte 240ish lbs) and our two roll-ons and some part & tools in the baggage bin (don't do the math). I could not believe how fast that thing came off the ground and how stable, solid and precise the controls felt when it was that heavy. He told me it would be like that. It was unlike anything I had ever flown before.
Click to expand...

The small taildraggers I’ve owned have been better fliers with weight in back. My new Cub has about 75# loaded as far aft as I can get it, and that’s way back there. My old Cub flew best with a passenger in back, especially on floats. My Cessna also flies better with aft CG but it suffers in takeoff performance. Not so with a Cub.
 
I agree the Carbon cub is a POS. They went to such extremes to save weight that it made a pretty crappy airplane other than looks and takeoff/landing. They are incredibly loud! I too love the Scout but wish it had an opening window on the left side. Not sure if newer ones do but the one I was in didn’t. You give up a lot of takeoff and landing distance but the truth is most places don’t require that short of a takeoff or landing roll. The added speed is much more beneficial. My only gripe with the Husky is they are heavy, and a real pain to work on. They have a gazillion screws holding everything on. With that in mind I would elevate the Scout over the Husky on my wish list.
 
The Husky I did some flight training in with a few customers was a blast. It is a great plane.
 
Carbon Cubs are a POS? The market says otherwise. I'd bet they outsell new Huskies and Scouts combined. There are 4 of them here on my home strip. Good performers. Far outnumbered by Supercubs but still nice airplanes. A 180hp airplane that weighs under 1000#? Wing loading and power loading are hard to argue with.
 
Stewartb said:
Carbon Cubs are a POS? The market says otherwise. I'd bet they outsell new Huskies and Scouts combined. There are 4 of them here on my home strip. Good performers. Far outnumbered by Supercubs but still nice airplanes. A 180hp airplane that weighs under 1000#? Wing loading and power loading are hard to argue with.
Click to expand...
Marketing dictates their sales. Not build quality.

Let's be honest. These planes (even supercubs) are not working planes, not really anyway, Cessnas and Beavers are working planes. The planes I compared are all rich man ATV's. If it's going to be a rich man's ATV, I care more about how it feels to fly in than I care about takeoff performance when they're all within a standard deviation of eachother anyway. And from that regard, X-Cubs, FX/Fx2/Fx3/ Sport Cubs are garbage, they're aviation mall crawlers.
 
Last edited:
Guys who have $300K to spend are after capability. Carbon Cubs are very capable. Not my cup of tea but I'm not blind. I prefer the Cub I built. Not my first, but it takes time to understand what you want.

On my home strip there are about a dozen working Supercubs. Most are out hunting. Tis the season. If you want to talk "bush" planes? Visit the bush.
 
I was in the middle of the African Bush last year, and didn't see a single Super Cub working. Saw plenty of others doing their job though. Maybe you need to visit the REAL bush.
 
What other? Huskies and Scouts? The workhorses in the AK bush are 207s, which are being replaced by 208s. But it's hard to land those on 200' mountain ridges to pick up sheep hunters.
 
Most of us, including Kent (post #17 above) and me, are probably just seeking an enjoyable flying experience by opening up the envelope.
My Husky is plenty capable, much more than its pilot. And that's the challenge and the enjoyment for me...working to get the latter's capabilities to converge with the former. In fact, as @motoadve has amply demonstrated, many of us don't even need a taildragger to stretch the envelope of our flying experience.

Maybe we should make a distinction between the very few hard-core "bush pilots", going sheep hunting in AK in custom built Super Cubs (which likely bear little resemblance in flying characteristics and capabilities to the plane Piper originally pushed out of the factory), and those of us just trying to have some fun, and hopefully becoming more skilled pilots, while exploring the "back-country". :D

There's something in aviation for everyone. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
Just pointing out the obvious.

Flying slow isn't instinctive to a Cessna pilot...
Click to expand...

Really?

Perhaps a poorly trained Cessna pilot. All my C-185 time was spent landing on tiny strips in Western Alaska, usually near max gross weight.

An approach without the stall horn wailing was way too fast...
 
My Cub's approach speed is 30mph and touchdown is 22. I expect to improve on that. In fact I just added new gear that adds 2* AOA in three point to help with it. I doubt any Cessna pilot would jump into this plane for a 30 minute trial flight and achieve those speeds. After 25 years in my own Skywagon the "not instinctive" comment is a pirep. Switching back and forth between the two reminds me, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top