Bellanca Scout vs. Aviat Husky

D

DMD3.

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
453
Location
Tifton, Ga
Display Name
Display name:
DMD3.
Ok we're at it again. We're comparing two aircraft very similiar in size, performance, and purpose. Both are 180 hp, two-seater (tandem) aircraft designed for very short takeoffs and landings. Both are equipped with flaps and also are powered by a constant-speed prop.

Are there any favorable charactaristics that one of these aircraft may have over the other? Perhaps one can get off the ground in a little shorter distance than the other. Maybe ones cockpit has a bit more room than the other. One may fly or handle a bit better... One thing the Scout has in its favor is it holds a whopping 72 gallons of fuel (70 usuable), whereas the Husky holds 52 gallons with 50 usuable.

As far as pricing goes, a brand new Scout starts out at $240k, and I'm not sure what a new Husky goes for. I've never been in a Scout (or any other American Champ/Bellanca aircraft for that matter), but I've ridden in the back of a Husky, and was astonished at how much headroom and legroom I had.
 
The Scout is a little roomier than the Husky.

The Husky I flew had the 2-blade composite prop on it, and the Scout had a 3-blade metal, so it's not really a direct comparison on performance, but both did what I needed them to do and more. I don't remember if both had performance charts, or just one.

The Husky flies a little tighter on the controls, where the Scout is a little less responsive (it's still got Champ genes;) ).

That's about as detailed as I can remember...it's been a few years.

Don't forget to look at useful load...full fuel may or may not be an option.
 
Yes even though both websites provide those details, I didn't bother trying to write them down to compare them.
 
The Scout is way easier to get into and out of, and it's way easier to work on. Husky welds their seats into the airplane, making access to some stuff rather difficult. Husky has bungee gear that requires a special tool, a lot of effort and a lot of patience to get those bungees in. Scout has aluminum leaf spring gear. Husky has a spring-type elevator trim, and I have replaced the springs on one here twice in three years. They stretch and lose tension. Scout has an effective trim tab. I would prefer the Scout, especially from a maintenance standpoint.
 
Just depends, what you want, if it's backcountry the husky wins, if it's a backcountry look, but you want something easy to get in and out of (elderly pilots or women and children) the scout wins.

Also why on earth would you buy a new airplane? Not like cars, and even then buying new is for the folks with more money than neurons.


Basically the scout is a modified champ, the husky is a modified super cub.
 
Can't speak for Husky vs. Scout, but can speak for CarbonCub/Xcub vs. Scout. I'd go for the scout. The Cubcrafters lineup uses the original J3 wing and ailerons which just doesnt work when you add more than 65hp to it. The ailerons are completely ineffective above 80mph, the aircraft is mind-blowingly loud. Take your headset off in a Cessna, thats what it sounds like with a headset ON in a CarbonCub. Cubcrafters planes are pretty much copies of super-cubs just a bit wider and lighter. Visibility is significantly better in the Scout as is seating position. The rear seat is a sling seat which is nice for putting it away but is terrible for passengers. It slides and rocks and sits very low. Flying from the back is incredibly challenging and nausea inducing.

If Husky has improved cockpit noise and their wing over the original supercub it could be a contender, otherwise definitely get a Scout.

Buying new has many tax advantages and you get exactly what you want... so there are reasons to buy new.
 
Owned a wooden-spar Scout for the past 25 years. Operated it on floats, skis and wheels. Have flown Supercubs quite a bit, have ridden in( once )but never flew a Husky. My opinion, the Scout is a great airplane, faster than the cub, with a roomier cabin(I think the Husky does a little better in these areas, but I don't have direct experience). However, for light and precise controls, and STOL performance, Cubs(and, no doubt, Huskys) have the Scout beat, hands down. There is no comparison, IMO. Used, the Scout will have a lower purchase price/resale value, which is why I bought a Scout, it does give very good value for the $. The obvious advice is to fly both, then decide. Pretty sure you will select the Husky. I know I would, if they were anywhere close in price.
 
The Supercub, Scout, And the Husky were developed for short strip work, The superb does a better job at that that the other 2. If you don't believe me ask the Alaska State police, they have converted to all Cub-Crafter's PA-18-180 fleet because they could not go where the poachers could with the state's Huskies.
 
What Husky? I think they changed the wing a couple of years ago. The early ones are now cheap.
 
For similar money get a Maule. Having 4 seats and the useful load of a 4 seat plane is great for serious time in the backcountry. I do a lot of airplane camping and my Maule holds gear the Scout and Husky can't dream of carrying. Here's the load I took to a dry lake bed in Nevada last fall. It fit in the Maule easily!
4K58LuUl.jpg
 
Mtns2Skies said:
can speak for CarbonCub/Xcub, the aircraft is mind-blowingly loud. Take your headset off in a Cessna, thats what it sounds like with a headset ON in a CarbonCub.
Click to expand...

Is it as loud as a Luscombe 8E (Luscombe with 85 hp)? It would make your eyes water without headset.

If Husky has improved cockpit noise and their wing over the original supercub it could be a contender, otherwise definitely get a Scout.
Click to expand...

I remember the Husky being fairly quiet. You'd definitely need headsets for the pilot and passenger to communicate with one another, but it's a bit quieter than a Skyhawk.
 
Flyhound said:
For similar money get a Maule. Having 4 seats and the useful load of a 4 seat plane is great for serious time in the backcountry. I do a lot of airplane camping and my Maule holds gear the Scout and Husky can't dream of carrying. Here's the load I took to a dry lake bed in Nevada last fall. It fit in the Maule easily!
4K58LuUl.jpg
Click to expand...

I was at the Maule Fly-in a few weeks ago at Spenceville airport. Wonder which model you could get that would be similiar in price.
 
Flyhound said:
For similar money get a Maule. Having 4 seats and the useful load of a 4 seat plane is great for serious time in the backcountry. I do a lot of airplane camping and my Maule holds gear the Scout and Husky can't dream of carrying. Here's the load I took to a dry lake bed in Nevada last fall. It fit in the Maule easily!
4K58LuUl.jpg
Click to expand...

Gotta love the Maule doors!
 
Tom-D said:
The Supercub, Scout, And the Husky were developed for short strip work, The superb does a better job at that that the other 2. If you don't believe me ask the Alaska State police, they have converted to all Cub-Crafter's PA-18-180 fleet because they could not go where the poachers could with the state's Huskies.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the last AST Top Cub is for sale. The Troopers fly Supercubs. Piper Supercubs.

Edit- http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/article/troopers-auction-2-planes-legislature-cuts-budget/2016/03/04/

To the original question? I wouldn't want either one as my first choice. Whether E-AB or certificated you can have a ground-up new Cub for less money and have a far more stol-worthy airplane. A 160 or 180hp widebody Cub with a belly pod can haul more than most guys think.
 
Last edited:
I've seen a few state owned huskies for sale too

But if the OP has new scout or husky money, go buy a 185
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top