Kenmore Air in Seattle.

But a Beaver can’t do everything… today is likely a no-fly day. No matter. Three large salmon plus a few 5lb. grilse make for a grand week. Fly rods, all fish released.

They never fly empty. Every trip carries something. Into or away from camp

My hangar neighbor has one on Amphibs that I fly.

It is an amazing airplane... on wheels. It is a lumbering pig on amphibs. I am told the 2 blade prop helps some. And yet, it is an absolute blast to fly!

I have not flown one on straight floats but I am told they do great.

If you enjoy flying, you will love it, because if you are going anywhere, you will get to do a lot of flying.

My friend, pilot, and this Beaver’s owner just resigned as chief pilot of NL Fire Bomber team. He was saying yesterday (as we were in a river canyon under a solid ceiling, discussing techniques) that it could slow and turn on a dime, but one had better be careful in steep turns with full flaps deployed. They’ve lost a few that way.

I like the sound of the Pratt, just ticking over at idle.

I completely agree with Doug's comments, but I've never flown a "pig." I wasn't aware they could actually fly?

Its a big super cub....
Big difference between straight and amphibian floats...
The amphibs have to cut a hole in exactly the wrong spot in the middle of the step, so takes a lot longer to get up on step...

Once in the air they fly the same...
On Amphibs on the runway, you have to flare pretty high.....

I've never flown one on straight wheels...

Do you need all the space?
Beaver is sexy, but a 206 or 185 will do all the same, burn less gas, go faster, cost less to keep, and fits in more hangar





What’s the freezing level?

I’ve filed a few IFRs from radial dmes

We did some testing with the R-985 powered Stinson V-77 on wheels after hearing about how well the 2 blade props did on Beavers.

2 blade 2D30 with 6101 blades 101". 60 lbs heavier and lost 500 fpm initial rate of climb (1500 down to 1000).

I did not try the Ag 100 blades. Almost lost a friend due to flutter after the airplane operated with that prop and they had worn out rear spar attach fittings plus out of balance controls.

I removed that and installed a 2 blade 2D30 with 6167 tapered blades also 101" diameter
Rate of climb came back but since it was so much heavier it did not make sense to keep it on.

Reinstalled the 3 blade Hartzell Beaver prop. Lighter and same performance as the 2 blade with 6167 Blades.

I'm currently flying a early Beaver S/N 86 with 3 blade Hartzell, stock wing, light with original cabin.
Light load I indicate about 130 mph in cruise with 29" Michelin main tires. 3500ft elevation and running about 26" 1850 RPM. I have not loaded it heavy yet. Still breaking in new engine.

Control balance is critical. Even with slow speeds it can flutter.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... rough-ride

https://www.supercub.org/forum/archive/ ... 27432.html


I used to work as a mechanic for an 135 operation with Beavers on wheel skis. Once the airframe was sorted out and if it was a good engine overhaul it was not bad to keep them running. 100hr was not really much different time wise than a 185 or 206. But as ADs and inspections have cropped up in the last 20 years there is more to do.

The Beaver is funny because it's known as this legendary bush airplane but many parts / hardware are very specialized by deHavilland and there were design choices that make you wonder sometimes. The engine is not hard to access but pulling exhaust and working around the carb heat box or even pulling rear spark plugs make you wonder what they were thinking.

Really it was initially a failure because when it first was produced just governments and a few Operators with high budgets bought them. Low production rate until the Military purchased them. Years later once those airplanes were surplus and sold cheap that is when the Beaver was bought up by civilians and then really began to be used.

The engine was going to originally be an odd English engine but Pratt offered deHavilland R-985s I believe remanufactured cheap. This gave the airplane much more power than originally designed and actually made it work. If the original engine was installed it would have been a flop.

They are often compared to a big super cub. But it's a bit different. The flaps are very effective and needed. It's a long skinny wing but at an odd angle of incidence. Loaded use some flaps when maneuvering slow. The wing is straight and without increasing the effective washout with flap deflection it may drop a wing faster than comparable Cub.

It's also interesting to compare the Beaver rudder to the Gullwing Stinson. The Beaver rudder is much smaller.

No expert.... rode in a few. Love the nostalgia of the original round engine and panel. True workhorses.

Here are some I saw today.....Just pick one.



I believe there are five different airframes in the pictures.
The owner of the shop was talking to me about the performance upgrades he expects to the turbine beavers when the projects are finished. Impressive.

I suspect there are a lot of projects in various stages of restoration in the North country, work for the shops in bad weather.

IF I was looking.... I believe I would want an expert on the breed on my team. Too many hours, AD's, field repairs, chance of corrosion, and work performed by different folks.

One owner not far from us in southern Oklahoma has one on wheels.

Leldon

Not an expert but wanted to share some insight.

My Dad had a Beaver on amphibs, N9LB. Wonderful airplane. Long while ago now so may not have all facts straight.

When he bought it, it had a big 2-blade paddle prop - very noisy (no idea of specs). He wanted more performance and to be more noise friendly to folks where he flew in and out of, so bought a 3-blade prop (no idea again of specs). After the change to 3-blade, he was sure that he lost performance - specifically take-off distance/getting on the step.

So, he did a static thrust test to compare the two props. Bought a load meter, hooked it between a rope to shore anchor and a rope to tail of the Beaver, and tested take-off power thrust. No idea of the actual numbers but the 2-blade performed well enough above the 3-blade that he re-installed it and returned the 3-blade.

Pretty sure he had an agreement from the 3-blade vendor that they would take the prop back if he could prove it lacked performance compared to the 2-blade.

I see the current form of the airplane seems to be 3-blade on straight floats.

Bill H. may have consulted on this endeavor and may be able to provide more detail.

Sure miss my Dad.