• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

DHC-2 Ownership Cost

Talk to Younkin about the 985 too. After flying behind engines from a handful of the shops, I’ll take a Younkin any day of the week. I’ve never flown a Beaver but have a couple thousand hrs sitting behind 1340’s and 985’s on AgCats, and the 985 is by far my favorite of the 2. It’s just a well designed, reliable engine that still doesn’t have much competition in its class. I currently have a 1300 hr engine on my backup plane that’s still running great, burns 1 gal/8 hrs of oil. I usually warm up for 30 mins minimum, 45+ on a cool day, and 20 min cooldown at the end of the day. Running them hard and adding 50 rpm to any power setting kept pressure out of the heads and running smoother, 31”/2150 initially, 30”/2050 once the load was light, 29”/1950 heading back to the strip. I limited myself to 35” on takeoff, I can count on one hand the amount of times I needed 36.5”, and it was always my fault for overloading. Keep the mags dry or you’re in for a long dryout and warmup. Beware of cylinders with Tulsa’s “barrel reconditioning,” they’re gonna pop. Don’t touch any engine controls until you’ve made the runway if a jug pops, it’ll keep running and get you home. I’m not sure if you can see the cylinder heads on a Beaver, but watch for them twitching if you can, any time I saw the engine twitch while flying I knew something was happening, either mag issues or a jug about to pop.

I’ve went on way too long, but I’ll always love the 985. Unfortunately the economics of maintaining them correctly will make their commercial use continue to drop, 2 years into running a PT6 and I’ll never go back.
 
Just to clarify, is Laura’s dream a wet Beaver or a dry Beaver? From my limited understanding, acquisition, maintenance, etc is substantially more on a wet Beaver. Personally, I’d be looking for a wet Beaver. Guessing there aren’t many in Arkansas to look at? SJ may have his work cut out on this Beaver hunt.

She isn't picky. I just love that big ol' radial engine and the sound of it. Sure I would love a beaver on floats. Although Beaver Lake (no kidding) is just down the road from here....we would need amphibs to get to it. Now you are talking a much bigger nut that we want to crack....I think.
 
She isn't picky. I just love that big ol' radial engine and the sound of it. Sure I would love a beaver on floats. Although Beaver Lake (no kidding) is just down the road from here....we would need amphibs to get to it. Now you are talking a much bigger nut that we want to crack....I think.
It’s your birthday, get amphibious :)
 
Look at several models of the Stinson Reliant. They would be less expensive than a Beaver, yet give the same appearance and sounds. Roomy and comfortable to fly. I had a 1933 Stinson SR, used to call it my mini-Beaver. :???:
 
The reason I said the Turbine was the plane was almost no maintained for pvt. use Beaver and the factoryTurbineis a MKIII which is exempt from some of the very expensive AD’s. The resale is also way better, they are going up every year. The Barron kit changes the angle of incidence on the wings and tail , big difference in slow flight.
 
Talk to Younkin about the 985 too. After flying behind engines from a handful of the shops, I’ll take a Younkin any day of the week. I’ve never flown a Beaver but have a couple thousand hrs sitting behind 1340’s and 985’s on AgCats, and the 985 is by far my favorite of the 2. It’s just a well designed, reliable engine that still doesn’t have much competition in its class. I currently have a 1300 hr engine on my backup plane that’s still running great, burns 1 gal/8 hrs of oil. I usually warm up for 30 mins minimum, 45+ on a cool day, and 20 min cooldown at the end of the day. Running them hard and adding 50 rpm to any power setting kept pressure out of the heads and running smoother, 31”/2150 initially, 30”/2050 once the load was light, 29”/1950 heading back to the strip. I limited myself to 35” on takeoff, I can count on one hand the amount of times I needed 36.5”, and it was always my fault for overloading. Keep the mags dry or you’re in for a long dryout and warmup. Beware of cylinders with Tulsa’s “barrel reconditioning,” they’re gonna pop. Don’t touch any engine controls until you’ve made the runway if a jug pops, it’ll keep running and get you home. I’m not sure if you can see the cylinder heads on a Beaver, but watch for them twitching if you can, any time I saw the engine twitch while flying I knew something was happening, either mag issues or a jug about to pop.

I’ve went on way too long, but I’ll always love the 985. Unfortunately the economics of maintaining them correctly will make their commercial use continue to drop, 2 years into running a PT6 and I’ll never go back.

Just reminded me of having mag blocks in my oven in Kodiak, on the phone talking to our old Chief of Maintenance, asking if he really thought this was a good idea..... His response: Well, you’re doing it the way I told you to, right?

Flying fine next day. He sent me a waterproof “Bra” that covered the gap between the cowl and the boot cowl. No more wet mags. Look at the line of Cessna 190/195s at Oshkosh....same device.

Agree on power settings. Same COM told me when I was checking out in the Beaver: “If you’re looking at trees in the TOP of the windscreen, I’d better find knuckle prints in the windshield as we look at the wreck. But if you don’t wreck, then you call me and we’ll decide what to do. I pulled a bunch once, called him the next day, while my underwear was in the wash.

MTV

MTV
 
Look at several models of the Stinson Reliant. They would be less expensive than a Beaver, yet give the same appearance and sounds. Roomy and comfortable to fly. I had a 1933 Stinson SR, used to call it my mini-Beaver. :???:


http://www.seaplanesnorth.com/1933-stinson-jr-sr/

That one will cost less than a couple years insurance on the Beaver!!

MTV- Spot on with the power advice. I have always been taught to cruise at the 8s or 9s, (28/18; 29/19) depending on load. Keep it under red for take-off and bring prop/throttle back together to reduce vibration and internal issues.

Of course, then the mechanics always tell you that if something is in the way, make sure the throttle is bent forward before you hit, but let them know if you don't hit so they can check the cylinders for separation and torque before the next flight.:???:

Flaps are the important part though. flaps to turn.;-)
 
Wouldn’t it be crazy expensive owning a Turbo Beaver for private use? Don’t turbines cost big money just sitting around doing nothing. Isn’t the fuel burn way more per hour, too?

I suppose if you’re crazy rich....

But if you’re thinking about owning a TB, wouldn’t a turbine otter be a better option? They use the same PT6, but carry twice the load.
 
Last edited:
Beavers are a handful for a private operator. Big and heavy. You need equipment or a crew to handle it. My bro-in-law had one for a while. A nice one, too. Way too much plane for an empty nester private pilot. I always liken my 180 to a Suburban and my Cub to a 4 Runner. A Beaver is like a WW2 deuce and a half. Loud, drafty, smelly, and slow. Not a great choice for date night unless your date is with 6 other big guys.
 
Don’t listen to the naysayers...a Beaver is just a big Cub! I’ve had the same PA18A for 33 years and operated a 185 for 20 years before trading up to a Beaver 7 years ago. There’s no doubt you’ll burn more gas but you’ll be flying with a big smile the whole time! For me I didn’t need a Beaver as much as I just wanted one...and I don’t need to justify my choice. Make sure you get a good one as there’s definitely some out there that have had a hard life. Hard to believe but I think the Beaver is lighter on the controls than the Cub, and almost as capable in tight spots. The biggest difference I find is the Beaver is more like a truck where the Cub is a motorcycle with wings. Good luck with your search...it’s only money!
 
Don’t listen to the naysayers...a Beaver is just a big Cub! I’ve had the same PA18A for 33 years and operated a 185 for 20 years before trading up to a Beaver 7 years ago. There’s no doubt you’ll burn more gas but you’ll be flying with a big smile the whole time! For me I didn’t need a Beaver as much as I just wanted one...and I don’t need to justify my choice. Make sure you get a good one as there’s definitely some out there that have had a hard life. Hard to believe but I think the Beaver is lighter on the controls than the Cub, and almost as capable in tight spots. The biggest difference I find is the Beaver is more like a truck where the Cub is a motorcycle with wings. Good luck with your search...it’s only money!

^^^^^ This!

We had a Briggs powered "Power Tow" at home base, KRNT, and a Bogert tow bar in the plane. Whenever we were at an away airport, there was ALWAYS an admirer that was happy to help push on a strut while I steered the T/W. Not that hard to move.

They attract attention like no other plane I can think of. Lots of thumbs up from the corporate jet pilots as we taxied by.

Kevin
510PW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Even with my less than 500 hr experience I could put a Beaver on/in any spot I could a later C-185 with we'll over 10x the time. They are that good when properly equipped and the pilot aware. It's an amazing aircraft.

Gary
 
Really appreciating all the input folks. I'm buried with other things so I am largely letting Laura do all the research. We have recieved a lot of great additional info on specifc planes by email, facebook, pm, etc.

I find it fascinating that it has never really "come up" much before that so many of you have owned or operated Beavers.

sj
 
Even with my less than 500 hr experience I could put a Beaver on/in any spot I could a later C-185 with we'll over 10x the time. They are that good when properly equipped and the pilot aware. It's an amazing aircraft.

Gary
In the mid seventies, I watched Charlie Coe ( Great pilot for Folsom's in Greenville Me) take 14 young boy scouts ( probably 100lb average weight) and two 18 ft cedar and canvas canoes out of Bear Pond (Rainbow twp) in north central me. I was in the pond with my old 39 j-3 fishing. The pond is deep, oblong in shape, and about 18 hundred ft. Only about 1500 is usable because of rocks and the tree line at that time was about 30ft. high at the lowest end where he went out. It wasn't even a challenge. He used about a third of it to break water and made it look easy. At the Greenville competitions I have seen him get it out of the water with a super cub easily.
 
StewB,
I commonly used to haul 3 passengers out of the old backwater where Upper Talarik runs into Lake Illamna, with Valhalla Lodges Kenmore Beaver.(1981/87)
If it was too rough to land in big lake. It was measured 700'........... Try that with your Cub.... Course it's about dryed up there nowadays.LoL.
 
Not meaning to get this thread off track, but how does the Noorduyn Norseman compare to the Beaver? Fabric verse metal of course, but a brute of a plane that has a big BA sounding radial also. One in Park Rapids, but rarely see it flown.
 
Not meaning to get this thread off track, but how does the Noorduyn Norseman compare to the Beaver? Fabric verse metal of course, but a brute of a plane that has a big BA sounding radial also. One in Park Rapids, but rarely see it flown.

A fairer comparison for the Norseman would be the Otter. They’re both larger than the Beaver, and much larger engines.

MTV
 
Even with my less than 500 hr experience I could put a Beaver on/in any spot I could a later C-185 with we'll over 10x the time. They are that good when properly equipped and the pilot aware. It's an amazing aircraft.

Gary

I flew Beavers for lodges years ago. At one lodge we operated periodically out of Shannons pond in Dillingham, about 1500 feet long as I recall. One operator would haul only one or two guests with luggage with a 185. With the Beavers we would regularly haul at full gross weight. They are very different planes for different purposes.
 
I went into Shannon's a few times with a C-185 but well loaded @ ~3600+ preferred Aleknagik Lake. My Beaver experience was limited and consisted of mainly heavy Dehavilland wheel skis and 4930 floats @ ~5100. I flew some on tires and was pleased with the full flap ~65 approach and landing on bar strips. Plain wing - stalls were real. Now there's all manner of wing mods I see locally.

An earlier POH with some performance charts: https://washingtonseaplanepilots.org/resources/Seaplane POHs/DHC-2-Beaver-POH.pdf

Gary
 
Back
Top