Maybe I am lucky and have a unicorndog. My instructor, who regularly flies lots of huskies, says my 200hp feels just like the rest of them. My trim settings are exactly as Kent describes. I burn less fuel and NEVER even come close to worrying about cooling. 10k foot climb on a 85* day at 73mph…oil and cht cool down with the lapse rate. I did not try to end up in a 200hp, but would do so if I had to do it again.
Do you get used to it? Any recommendations?
- Thread starter TxAgfisher
- Start date
bumper
Well-Known Member
Many remove the unnecessary rudder return springs on the rear pedals.
tbienz
Well-Known Member
I really like my Husky, but I’d never describe it at “fast.” It will make 100kts at 2000rpm max lean, so I guess it’s not horrible, but when traveling with the plane, here in Wyoming we often get pretty heavy winds and there have been several days fighting the ever-present headwinds where I notice that the semis and freight trains are passing me. But I know it could be worse. Several years ago a pilot landed a SuperCub at my home field (KLAR) and after tying down on the ramp (to keep the plane from blowing away) he walked into the FBO, clearly frustrated. I asked him if something had happened to his plane. He said no, but that he had been flying for several hours into the wind and was only making 20kts VMG so he was “giving up and going to a motel to try again tomorrow.“
bumper
Well-Known Member
tbienz,
That reminds me of flying my Aeronca 7AC "Champ" from Minden, NV to Napa, CA. Had a hand propped 65 hp, with wooden paddle out front. On a good day it'd do a barely honest 85 mph, but not more without help from Ma Nature (and that's rare it seems). The only things I ever caught in the air were the Goodyear Blimp, and once I almost caught up with an AN2 (but he might have been going slow on purpose in the pattern).
Once over S. Lake Tahoe heading west, GPS showed a ground speed of 13 mph, almost as fast as a bicycle and faster than most baby strollers! I had full fuel (13 gallons) but could never have made Napa , CA without re-fueling at that rate. However, I knew once I cleared the western flank of the Sierra I could start down, and beyond the foothills I'd be able to drop down to fence post level if need be - - and that worked!
That reminds me of flying my Aeronca 7AC "Champ" from Minden, NV to Napa, CA. Had a hand propped 65 hp, with wooden paddle out front. On a good day it'd do a barely honest 85 mph, but not more without help from Ma Nature (and that's rare it seems). The only things I ever caught in the air were the Goodyear Blimp, and once I almost caught up with an AN2 (but he might have been going slow on purpose in the pattern).
Once over S. Lake Tahoe heading west, GPS showed a ground speed of 13 mph, almost as fast as a bicycle and faster than most baby strollers! I had full fuel (13 gallons) but could never have made Napa , CA without re-fueling at that rate. However, I knew once I cleared the western flank of the Sierra I could start down, and beyond the foothills I'd be able to drop down to fence post level if need be - - and that worked!
TxAgfisher
New Member
A buddy of mine was able to navigate through the NTSB site better than me and found the damage history. Looks like it’s been down hard, twice. Might just be this particular airplane.
W&B claims 137x with 29” wheels. I haven’t weighed it myself. Probably will at annual when I will be pulling my vacuum system.
Bummer!
Mine needed some rigging help. A poorly rigged plane sucks. Hopefully this one can be fixed easily.
belloypilot
Active Member
Hard to believe that is actual empty wt of a 200hp Husky with 29's. Great if actual, but doubtful in my experience.That could be the lightest 200HP Husky I’ve ever heard of, but that could have more to do with limitations of what I’ve heard than the weight of airplanes. Must be a real pleasure to fly. I’m envious
Last edited:
Flying Dave
Active Member
Don’t weigh it and find out what it actually is…. Lol
belloypilot
Active Member
Mine lost over 20 lbs when it stepped on the scales, so the news isn’t always bad. Thankfully.
Ak Kurt
Well-Known Member
Guy’s, when you weigh your Husky’s do it with empty tanks. Drain all fuel except for unusable. Husky’s hold more fuel than specified. If you top the tanks and subtract the advertised unusable fuel you will have an empty weight that is not correct. A good example, my 1974 Cessna 185 had 74 usable but when we drained the tanks we put 83 gallons back in. If I had weighed the airplane with full tanks and subtracted usable fuel then I would have an empty weight on paper 54 pounds heavier than actual empty weight. Weigh em empty! (Less unusable fuel of course)
Kurt
Kurt
belloypilot
Active Member
Isn’t it easier to drain all the fuel, weigh it, then add in the weight of the specified unusable fuel to come up with BEW? Or maybe that’s what you meant and I misunderstood. That’s what we did, and turns out my Husky holds 54 gallons - which apparently isn’t unusual.
Also if one flies a 180 Husky, then tries out a 200 you will find they are very nose heavy in comparison. Plus the added empty weight which is just more weight in the wrong place, up front. Husky's are nose heavy to start with.
Snowbirdxx
Well-Known Member
Well unusable fuel has little to do how much you can get Out of the Tanks when Level. Its described in far 23. Sideslip 15deg and switched to the Most critical Tank. When the engine Starts sputtering, the remaining fuel is unusable fuel. Most Planes run dry when Level.
Plus then you can make marks next to your sight tubes more specific than quarters.
jliltd
Active Member
In addition, if you do drain the fuel out of the system for weighing, don't drain it from the tank quick drains. Rather drain it from the carb or fuel servo at the fuel line fitting. That way the whole system is drained in the same way fuel is delivered, and any unusable or "p-trapped" fuel stays onboard in the proper low points an nooks and crannies.