I'm new here, but a Super Cub owner, originally from the UK, now living in Australia. I have a couple of questions about the Beaver's and the Norseman's performance on wheels.
Can anyone give me a typical cruise speed and fuel burn for each, moderately loaded?
How do the handling characteristics of the two compare, particularly on landing obviously.
Wheeler vs three pointer -- any thoughts?
Any other thoughts on complexity to operate / maintain?
Thanks in advance,
The Norseman with the wooden wing and fabric is better hangared for sure. 1340 not quite as reliable as the 985 but both very reliable. You need someone around who has worked on the radials as they are completely different than any conventional engine. The Norseman only has a couple of AD's and isn't acquiring any more with the limited hours they are flying. The Beaver on the other hand has stacks of AD's and every time Transport Canada walks by they give it another one. Mostly generated by salt dogs but everybody has to play. What are you planning to use it for?
Never flew a Norseman on wheels, just floats and skiis. A much better floater than a Beaver IF you have lots of lake because it is not a STOL airplane. Non steerable tailwheel and vintage drum brakes can make it a groundlooper if you get careless but on your toes, just a great airplane. The Beaver is a more tractable airplane on the ground because of more modern disc brakes.
The Beaver is a more modern airplane but for the floatplane crew it is more difficult to dock if you have to do it by by yourself, mostly because it is more difficult to slide across the cockpit to exit the right side.
3 main fuel tanks on the Beaver are in the belly. Optional wing tip fuel tanks must be a bitch to refuel out in the bush because you need a tall ladder.
Main fuel tanks in a Norseman are in the wings but there are awkward but useable steps to climb up the side of the fuselage, onto the base of the windshield and up on the roof of the cockpit. Optional fuel tanks on a Norseman are in the belly.
Beaver has about a 1400 to 1500 pound payload on wheels vs the 2000+ pounds of the Norseman.
Fabric covering and wooden wings of the Norseman is a consideration but the steel tube fuselage is easier to repair if required.
As mentioned in a previous post, the R985 radial engine in the Beaver and the R1340 engine in the Norseman are a different breed of beast than the flat 4 and 6 engines in spam cans so a pilot has to learn how to fly them properly and a mechanic has to be a bit nuts and must love to be covered in oil to work on them but treated right, they will produce.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
It is my understanding that the majority of ADs on Beavers were the result of shity maintenance by the operators back east. Just sayin.The Norseman only has a couple of AD's and isn't acquiring any more with the limited hours they are flying. The Beaver on the other hand has stacks of AD's and every time Transport Canada walks by they give it another one. Mostly generated by salt dogs but everybody has to play. What are you planning to use it for?
Beavers are a lot more common, everybody seems to love flying them. Parts availability is so good, you can rebuild it from a data plate.