DHC-2 Ownership Cost

Steve. Finally someone makes a really great decision in 2021

You are not in Kansas anymore, so flying houses are a bit less common...

Elbow room property, does that mean a cub strip or heli pad?

Beavers are a big bite. If you knew you had work for it, or you had all the money you wish you had, maybe!!

Enjoy the property, pictures?

Yeah Mike those were the days, I always wanted to get a pic of you in the piston beaver, me in the stock turbine beaver, and the Pinocchio beaver, but alas we were always working too hard...

mvivion said:

I worked a Beaver for several years in Kodiak. It was on amphibious floats. Actually, the floats were the vast majority of maintenance on that plane. The P and W 985 is a great engine, with proper pilot technique. Consistent and thorough warm up and respect of limits is key to keeping that engine happy. Kenmore long ago significantly increased their average time between overhaul by mandating warm ups.
otherwise very reliable engines. Some use a bit of oil, but I’ve flown really tight ones.

The airframe is arguably one of the toughest, most durable ever built. There’s a reason that lots of Alaska coastal air taxi operators went to Cessna 206s, but many have now gone back to Beavers. Load haulers, but they tolerate the work much better.

Consider the average total time of virtually all Beavers.....the one I flew was “low time” when I flew it, at 7000 hours or so. That was in the 80s. It was sold then and went to an air taxi. It’s still flying air taxi in Kodiak....a year round gig, btw.

Theyre tough in other words. I was devastated when management replaced that Beaver with a new 206.

MTV

Click to expand...

Here you go....We might have to come up with a good beaver name for the place (even if the street is a bird name). If all goes well....we will close on June 1st, almost a year to the day that we closed on the current house. That's a record for us I think.

Greatly appreciate all the help in this. It was really hard NOT to choose a beaver....but I think we would have kicked ourselves having done it. Sigh! Who knows, maybe someday we will try it again.

cafi

Very nice, but a pool might be more maintenance then a beaver ;- )

Glenn

cubdriver2 said:

Very nice, but a pool might be more maintenance then a beaver ;- )

Glenn

Click to expand...

That's no pool that's a beaver pond.

cubdriver2 said:

Very nice, but a pool might be more maintenance then a beaver ;- )

Glenn

Click to expand...

TRUE! I mainted two pools for a hotel when I worked there... I swore I would never own one! YIKES

40m said:

that's no pool that's a beaver pond.

Click to expand...

ha!

It's a saltwater pool which is supposedly less difficult to maintain and it is just a wee little thing so.... I think they call it a dipping pool. We don't have the lake anymore and I don't hold up well in the heat....so this is the next best thing.

cafi

Yea, all those trees are gonna be the maintenance part. They make good composting bins until you get enought dirt to fill them in. Don't ask how I know.


Congrats, looks like an awesome place. How long is the bike ride to downtown and the airport?

cafi19 said:

View attachment 55536 cafi

Click to expand...

Is that a pipe line right of way crossing the upper third of the property? Perhaps an old railroad bed?

skywagon8a said:

Is that a pipe line right of way crossing the upper third of the property? Perhaps an old railroad bed?

Click to expand...

It's a small power line easement.

Steve Pierce said:

Congrats, looks like an awesome place. How long is the bike ride to downtown and the airport?

Click to expand...

It's about 1 mile from Sugar Creek (58AR), 4 miles from the square, and 6.5 miles to KVBT.

sj

You can expect to do crap like this.

Yes, this thread is dated, hence my objective to provide an update ref Beaver ownership cost, specifically related to required inspections.

AD 2023-19-06 (effective Nov 2023) and its supporting document PSM 1-2-5, DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, all 194 pages, is the latest regulatory directive delineating DVI and NDI requirements on the Beaver. Depending on where you are located, it may be near impossible to find the required NDI expertise, let alone the expertise AND familiarity with the inspection requirements specific to the DHC-2. Neither Kenmore Air nor Wipaire accomplish the recurring Ultrasonic testing required on the forward tubular frame (birdcage) in house due to the specialized training and test equipment requirements.

For those contemplating making the leap to the wonderful world of Beaver ownership, I suggest you line up the NDI expertise and equipment beforehand; And pray that Viking Air never takes over the Type Certificate for the original Piper Cub series aircraft.

TR

Hey TRD: What's wrong with Viking?

Nothing really wrong with Viking as they own the type certificate and are just trying to manage the liability of machines that have been running commercially for 75 years in the salt water environment. Scads of AD's and service bulletins that unfortunately really should not be applicable on a private fresh water machine. Most are calendar time that might no be a big issue if your running commercially but there are some fairly major time limited items that are applicable to the whole fleet that are many thousands of dollars. Tail has to come off every 2 years even if you have never flown it is probably the cheapest and easiest one. Major difference in whats needed for a US registered one because only a handful of the AD's actually apply to them. Private operators of a Canadian Beaver are held to the exact same standard as say Harbour Air. If you buy a really good beaver that is up to date as far as maintenance goes they are still very expensive to maintain. In a totally different ballpark from say a 185 or any piston single. People just need to know that before they buy one.

Paul Heinrich said:

Hey TRD: What's wrong with Viking?

Click to expand...

Who stated there is something “wrong with Viking” as you ask? I cannot speculate an answer to your question as it is well beyond my purview. I have, however, formed an opinion based on the ever-increasing edicts that flow from their solutions to an alleged fleet wide problem with the DHC-2 series aircraft. My opinion is formed by detailed data and experience as why I believe Viking Air is not making sound science-based decisions regarding the long-term viability and supportability of the Beaver. I have reached out to Viking over the years to provide my assessments with possible solutions with either no response or no interest. Hence my tongue in cheek opinion Cub owners should be grateful Viking Air is not interested in the PA-18 series Type Certificate (TC).

My benchmark? Kenmore Air Harbor. Great parts support, outstanding quality of those parts, and most important to me, stellar technical support at every department. It is my opinion that the Beaver would fare much better in the hands of Kenmore owning the TC as they continually prove their commitment to viable solutions to the long-term supportability of the Beaver.

The Beaver is no different than any other aircraft; if subjected to a severely corrosive operating environment, it will require additional and possible specialized inspections more often in addition to pro-active maintenance and corrosion control measures. Unfortunately, Viking Air is placing every Beaver in the same worst case operating environment with worst-case maintenance (or lack thereof) and the FAA simply follows suit. I believe a more targeted approach of why certain operators experience severe corrosion issues vice the current shotgun approach designed for the worst-case scenario would yield a more practical yet effective solution. Imagine the pushback if all PA-18 series airframes were mandated to have the tubular frame inspected and mapped by ultrasound every five years. Buy a new frame and you are given ten years before re-entering the five-year NDI cycle. The current requirements are written as if every Beaver were parked on a beach in Fiji! My new (in 2009) Kenmore front fuselage struts (near double the wall thickness of originals) will hit the magic number of 15 years old this September. I can then replace with new or accomplish the mandated repetitive NDI at the mandated intervals, (there are zero anomalies or failures of Kenmore struts to date). I removed the elevator control rod (not required at the time, I wanted to inspect it) and had it inspected by mag particle, it was flawless, however, AD 2016-25-22 was later issued and life limited the rod requiring installation of new. Why? Not a flawed part, flawed maintenance, failure of certain operators to inspect and maintain that part due to the difficulty in removing for proper inspection in my opinion. The true irony of this example is my control rod part number was not included in the Viking SB or AD. I could have legally re-installed this rod, however, once I informed Viking tech support of their omission of my part number, I assumed they would follow-up with an amendment adding two simple words “all variants”. Just another example of poor regulatory writing. The amendment never came so I have a spare mag particle inspected elevator control rod if anyone needs one.

Unfortunately, the Beaver community is small relative the Cub, resulting in little to no pushback during the NPRM, and yes, I have utilized the AMOC process with some success.

Having cut my teeth in the ag side of aviation, I see parallels in the problems Viking Air appears to be facing with a percentage of the Beaver fleet (never given actual numbers by Viking) concerning corrosion, however, that is where the similarity ends. I have yet to see major airframe components life limited and recurring invasive NDI required on the Stearman Model 75 or Ag Cat, aircraft that have had far more exposure to corrosive agents than most Beavers. The reason? Proper maintenance. (Yes, I am aware other Ag aircraft manufacturers have life limited components, the two aforementioned are my experience base for comparison)

I believe mechanics and inspectors know their aircraft and operating environment better than the bureaucrats. As I have had every lug, fork, attach point and tube inspected by the applicable NDI method on my Beaver I know I do. I apologize for the lengthy reply, my objective is insight for the community as we do our best to keep all legacy airframes both supportable and safe.

TR

Gee, I'm sorry; it was a simple question.

Wasn't it obvious from your wish that we all "pray" that Viking never owns the 18 TC that you held a negative view of them?

If you're not happy with Viking and the aircraft types they build and support, maybe you should stick with or switch to Cessnas for your heavy STOL lifting.

Paul Heinrich said:

Gee, I'm sorry; it was a simple question.

Wasn't it obvious from your wish that we all "pray" that Viking never owns the 18 TC that you held a negative view of them?

If you're not happy with Viking and the aircraft types they build and support, maybe you should stick with or switch to Cessnas for your heavy STOL lifting.

Click to expand...

Your reply is both arrogant and condescending. I provided you my time providing insight to a known problem effecting the Beaver community. I prefer to make things better rather than quitting. A simple thank you and press on is the proper response. BTW, Viking did not build the Beaver. Over and out!

TR

I am not ashamed to admit I can no longer afford to own and maintain a Ferrari, but I would be if I blamed Ferrari.

Have you noticed you don’t see many Beavers falling out of the sky attributed to Viking? Better safe than sorry.

As momma taught: “big fish living in a little pond should know not to go swimming in the ocean.”