I'm considering a 200 hp Husky.

ChipBeck

Active Member
Gentlemen,

I've owned two 180 HP Huskys and took delivery of a new 200 HP A1-C a year ago. The main reason I ordered a new plane was to get rid of that damn carburetor, carb heat, and the impossible to balance cylinder head temps. I changed baffles behind and in front of the cylinders and still wasn't happy with the result. The front baffles gave me more equal temps not by sending more air to the rear cylinders to cool them down, they just raised the temps of the two front cylinders a lot so they got closer to the rear cylinder temps. Not what I was looking for.

I'm not a float plane pilot (I'd like to be someday however), but there's a reason that 80% of new Husky's sold today are fuel injected 200 HP models. My plane starts instantly hot or cold, cylinder head and EGT temps are always even, oil temp is lower because the 200 has 2 oil coolers and a cowl flap which is big here in AZ, and fuel burn is just slightly lower. Climb rate is better, the plane is just slightly faster, and I don't have to worry about carburetor ice. The engine weight difference is 35lbs and the extra oil cooler and controllable cowl flap add another 10lbs. Add in noticeably smoother operation and it's no contest for this old man who uses 8.50 tires and doesn't fly into muddy, rocky, really tricky short strips. (If I did that I'd fly a 150K used Husky with a 180 and big tires).

Downside is +45 lbs and +50K. I love every Husky I've ever flown, 180 or 200. But given the choice and having considerable time in both, I really prefer the Fuel Injected 200. Happy New Year!

Chip
 

belloypilot

Active Member
These airplanes seem to get used for pretty wide variety of missions - more so than one would guess just looking at the machine and assuming what its best suited for. I’m in the lighter = better and aft CG preference camp, but I get the advantages of the 200 if off airport and testing the short field capabilities isn’t the highest priority. Would sure be great to not have to compromise, but this guy does a great job of explaining how trade-offs work :)

 

belloypilot

Active Member
Had a chance to fly an A-1C 200 on Wiip amphibs this week. The thing was chubby at 1750 lbs empty, but it still performed better than I expected at that weight. I get why people like that engine. And I get why some don’t like it because of the weight and forward CG. My next experience in a Husky on floats will probably be mine on Baumann straight floats this summer. It will be interesting to see the difference. Should be about 300 lbs lighter than this one. Not a fair comparison I know, but it will be interesting to feel the real world performance difference nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

jliltd

Active Member
Dont forget the safety factor with a 180. Gravity fuel flow and easier to start. What if you are off airport with no help and the battery or fuel pump becomes an issue ? I agree with all the replies and a ported 180 is a lot less weight with great performance
The only time I use the electric boost pump on the 200hp model is the first flight of the day. Then no more. The fuel system installed in the airframe is the same for both engine models and is gravity feed. I follow the Aviat procedure of only using boost pump when the engine is cold. Although I agree that a hot start by hand-propping could be fickle since I use the "mixture-sweep" method.
 
Top