Red Lake, Ont. Canada, 15.09.2005
'Beaver Check', a report from the Red Lake Bush Flying Trade Show.
Checking out the Beaver and it's possible replacements.
Lets just assume we need to replace the trusty ol Beaver, in service with our hosts.
So, how do I get about doing that?
.
>>Disclaimer: this test is not based on real aircraft, but on simulator models for X-Plane.
As such, the results of the testflights and the expressed comments are not applicable to the real aircraft and should not be taken as serious reference or guidance for anything related to the real aircraft and manufacturers.
OK, like I more or less know the planes from acquisition or servicing by ACLF -lucky me! ;-) I've decided not to go and just take them out for a flight but have a look at 'the numbers' first ...
> Sorry, this may get lengthy as I'm playing with data first.
The Excel document (an excerpt from the 'DOCdata') may illustrate some of my thoughts and deliberations
The numbers
First, what can I do in the way of an upgrade to the currently owned plane?
-We could refurbish it and have it upgraded to 'Super Beaver' standards, with a PZL 3S engine. That's probably not too expensive; but will raise your DOC to 204.- us$ (was 153.- $)... For the same DOC you could also fly a Norseman or Otter and allow you to carry 2 or 4 extra pax. Naturally you would then need to to trade in your old trusted Beaver and depending on its condition -and the price you can get for it- it would probably become more expensive than the 'Super Beaver upgrade' (there's not many Norseman's available and a 'nice' Otter is still very much in vogue and not cheap either).
-We could go for the Turbo Beaver conversion, which is more expensive. That again raises your pax capacity by four but your DOC to just 187.- $. Trading in is probably more expensive yet, well over 500.000 $
If we are then looking at a DOC of 204.- $ or less, we could think about something ranging between the Super or Turbo Beaver (Otter and Norseman too, if you like) down to the Cessna 172 (sorry, I don't have a C185 available).
Do you want something wit a similar pax capacity -the Beaver's 6+1 or at least not less than 5+1-? Then we can rule out the Cessna 172 and Bush Hawk.
By the way, looking at those two; at ±40.- $ DOC more and 1 extra pax I would rather settle for the Bush Hawk. On the other hand for 2.- $ DOC less, another 2 pax extra and excellent STOL capability, I'd rather take a used Helio Courier instead -if you can find one-
OK, back to pax capacity ... Lets separate that into 'low end' for 6+1 or less pax (5+1) with a lower DOC and 'high end' for 6+1 pax or more with a higher DOC.
-The 'low end'. You can trade in your Beaver for another 'used' plane, making some money on the transaction; the likes of the Helio Courier or a Dornier Do27; not many of them around. You can also trade in for a 'factory new' airplane, think of a Cessna 206, a GA8 Airvan, a Gavilan 358 (if they are being produced/sold) or a SM-92 Finist (if you can find the right channel to acquire one); the last two come at a 'very friendly price' :-)
-The 'high end'. The SM-92G Turbo Finist could be 'factory new' and again at a 'very friendly price', but difficult to get. For the 'used' aircraft you could think of a Turbo Porter, a Turbo Beaver or a Dornier Do28B (only a few of them around, best chance is an ex-Israeli AF from private/civilian stock).
Oh yes, in-between 'high' and 'low' there's the PC-6 Porter (original piston engined model), with a lower DOC and higher pax capacity than the Beaver; though there are only less than a handfull left nowadays :-(
>I've just checked, I think there's only 3 left ...
That's for 'the numbers' then.
What's next?
I took each of the selected planes down on the same trip: take off from CYRL 08, fly down to Sandy Beach -on Trout Lake- to inspect the intended landing approach (from one of the close-by islets and towards the resort, ±110º dictated by wind) turn a 180º over the resort and back to the islets for another 180 and the final approach and touchdown. Taxi to the dock, change over the payload (same weight) in about 10 minutes; taxi out of the resort again (while inspecting the intended TO area) and take off again for a flight back to CYRL 08.
First flight was of course for the Beaver, to 'set the standard'; ±1400 payload -that being the pilot and emulated 6 pax (just miscellaneous goodies to and from the resort)- full fuel, up to MTOW (or full tanks if under MTOW) and trying to keep the cruise altitude at 3000 ft msl and ±117kts, for all planes.
At the end I just decided to forget about the Helio Courier -strike one- and throw in (just for the fun of it, not a real option as it only is -was- a concept study) a flight with the Ross Amphibian (BN-2 Islander conversion).
(click on the snapshots to enlarge)
DHC-2 Beaver | Gippsland GA8 Airvan | Dornier Do27
Technoavia SM-92 Finist | El Gavilan 358 | Pilatus PC-6 Porter
MH1521 Broussard | Super Beaver | Dornier Do28B
SMG-92 Turbo Finist | PC-6B2H4 Turbo Porter | Turbo Beaver
Noorduyn Norseman | DHC-3 Otter | Ross Amphibian
CKS4 - CYRL >Flightno.1049 the short transfer from Chimo to Red Lake for the 'standard' Beaver.
CYRL - CYRL >Flightno.1050 to flightno. 1067 (excluding 1052, 1056 and 1064) for the 15 separate flights, with the different aircraft, from CYRL to Sandy Beach and back.
The data resulting from these testflights can be seen in this Excel document.
Results
... and based on these results my (very personal) choice and thoughts go like this:
If my usual charter was 6 passengers with 'normal' luggage and I don't need the extra payload capability of the Beaver (*), I would take an Airvan or Finist; both factory new and with lower operating costs (fuel & DOC), the later being a real bargain costing you about half the return price of your Beaver...
(*) at the same range/fuel tankage, with 6 pax, that's an additional 800 lbs. for the Beaver vs only 72 lbs. for the Airvan or 179 lbs. for the Finist)
Or maybe even a Turbo Finist, also with a low purchase price and marginally lower operating cost (DOC slightly higher than the Beaver, while the fuel consumption is lower).
All three above are 'factory new'. If I look now at the 'used' models, I wouldn't mind at all taking a good Turbo Porter.
OK, so the operating costs (fuel[1] & DOC) are marginally higher, but I could raise my payload capacity (at the same range/tankage as above, 300 lbs. over that of the Beaver) or have seating for an extra 4 pax (11 vs 7) generating more income on my flights.
[1] not totally true as in real life -as opposed to dESPair XP- the Beaver's avgas is more expensive than the turboprop's Jet Fuel.
Anyway, as said, this is only based on 'the numbers' in the simulator and my personal taste/choice.
Cheers,
Brick
< back to RLBA-2 index