Why Prices?

Orville Wright

Orville Wright

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
18
Display Name
Grizzly Adams
Hello folks, sorry for what may be a dumb question. I got my private pilots license in a Cessna 152 about 15 years ago and soon there after let it expire for lack of money to fly. Anyway I'm getting back into recreational aviation and am going to buy a plane . I pretty much have my mind set on buying a new to me ( year 2000's) Maule 260c. My question is why is the Cessna 182 soo much more expensive. I am also kicking around the Aviat Husky and wonder why a two seater Husky would also be so much more expensive than the Maule. Am I missing something. Thanks for any input guys.
1418557.jpg
 
Tom-D said:
You best do your home work on the husky, the Alaskan government replaced them because they simply wouldn't do the job.

The Maule is a rag and tube aircraft, also

If you want a better choice look at the Cub Crafter's web site.

This one
http://www.cubcrafters.com/inventory/N9796P

or

http://www.cubcrafters.com/inventory/N4293Z

both are equipped to do off airport work. and have all the up grades
Click to expand...

Thanks Tom. The Carbon Cub looks awesome. I wonder if I should go with an LSA. I had figured resell would be easier on a certified aircraft but I could be wrong. So I guess you would say the Cessna is more expensive because of the aluminum body, maybe fit and finish on the interior?
 
Same with the border patrol, bought a few but they would not perform as desired.
 
I don't have much time in a Husky, but what were they not doing that was desired? Seemed to perform just fine to me... In fact, way more than fine! :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't have much time in a Husky, but what were they not doing that was desired? Seemed to perform just fine to me... In fact, way more than fine! :dunno:
Click to expand...

I'm asking the same question about the Maule. The spec sheet makes it look like the bargain.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't have much time in a Husky, but what were they not doing that was desired?
Click to expand...

I am told by an ex-BP chief pilot who was on active duty during the Husky trial period that the early models did not have the desirable stall characteristics of the Supercub and that they lost one pilot due to this so they discontinued the evaluation.
 
Last edited:
Check the insurance prices on a Maule and Husky. One has a high accident rate and the other has only one source for parts. Cub's and Cessna's have many suppliers or many available for parts.
Husky's in Border Patrol were out of CG range the way they were equipped and operated.
Alaska Fish and Game has used them successfully.
Dave
 
That accident was more likely the result of the type of operation and pilot error than having anything to do with the make and model.

Not to be irreverent but the proportion of Supercub pilots who passed through the Pearly Gates seconds after saying 'hey look at that' to Husky pilots having done the same thing are in rough proportion to the number of each model produced over the years. Heck you could probably populate an entire small city with the souls of Alaskans who have died in stall/spins in Supercubs, alone.

Any taxpayer-funded operation requiring the performance provided by that type of aircraft should be operating them within parameters that don't require the marginal advantages of one over the other to be demonstrated, IMO, except perhaps for the superior cruise speed of the Husky.

I don't fly either but I ride in both.
 
Last edited:
That accident was more likely the result of the type of operation and pilot error than having anything to do with the make and model.
Click to expand...

That could well be true but the deceased in this accident, David Robertson was a very, very experienced pilot - and the Border Patrol just could not get what they needed (circling slowly at low level over a point) from the Husky that they could out of the Supercub - that fact combined with the crash caused them to switch.
I bet the Husky is better than the Supercub in other areas of performance.
 
d.grimm said:
Check the insurance prices on a Maule and Husky. One has a high accident rate and the other has only one source for parts. Cub's and Cessna's have many suppliers or many available for parts.
Husky's in Border Patrol were out of CG range the way they were equipped and operated.
Alaska Fish and Game has used them successfully.
Dave
Click to expand...

The Alaska Fish and Game watched a lot of S/Cub operators land places they couldn't go. The poachers would simply land and wait until the cops ran out of gas. then go home.

Neither of the aircraft I linked above are Light Sport. Both are rebuilds by my friend here at OKH. both aircraft are all new parts starting with a new 2300# fuselage, with every thing you can get or want on a S/Cub. The red and white cub has a factory new 180 horse engine, it's his personal aircraft hangared at Fairbanks and used regularly. The yellow one has a 180 horse I built to new spec. flowed and balanced to 3k RPM. several pilots have commented that it is the smoothest cub they have flown.
 
alaskaflyer said:
That accident was more likely the result of the type of operation and pilot error than having anything to do with the make and model.

Not to be irreverent but the proportion of Supercub pilots who passed through the Pearly Gates seconds after saying 'hey look at that' to Husky pilots having done the same thing are in rough proportion to the number of each model produced over the years. Heck you could probably populate an entire small city with the souls of Alaskans who have died in stall/spins in Supercubs, alone.

Any taxpayer-funded operation requiring the performance provided by that type of aircraft should be operating them within parameters that don't require the marginal advantages of one over the other to be demonstrated, IMO, except perhaps for the superior cruise speed of the Husky.

I don't fly either but I ride in both.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen a Husky win at Valdez ?

The biggest problem with the husky is the constant speed prop is heavy, and brings the C/G too far forward to be the excellent off field aircraft that Husky thought it would be. It is about 5k faster than the S/Cub and 150# heavier.

the accident rate is simply a exposure thing, the Cub s have been doing this a very long time. Yes there have been a lot of pilots killed in S/Cubs, because of the operating environment, Some body is always trying to do some thing no aircraft should be asked to do.
 
Tom-D said:
the accident rate is simply a exposure thing, the Cub s have been doing this a very long time. Yes there have been a lot of pilots killed in S/Cubs, because of the operating environment, Some body is always trying to do some thing no aircraft should be asked to do.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said in my comment that for government work they should both be about the same. If you need the slight performance advantage that the Cub brings over the Husky on takeoff and landing then you should really be in a helicopter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top