Boss Beaver

This forum has been developed to discuss Bush Flying & Specialty Air Service topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore, Rudder Bug

Post Reply
PointsNorth
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:53 am

Boss Beaver

Post by PointsNorth »

Wondering if anyone has any experience with the Boss Beaver conversion, seems to be a select few that keep coming up for sale, don't seem to be any being operated commercially in Canada? Pros/Cons anyone whos flown it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
SuperchargedRS
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:30 am
Location: the stars playground

Re: Boss Beaver

Post by SuperchargedRS »

No one likes a bossy beaver
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2565
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Boss Beaver

Post by Meatservo »

I apologize in advance for replying even though I've never flown one. I've SEEN one in the flesh however, and I've been to Wipaire's factory and listened to them boast about it.

It's an abomination.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I'll tell what I don't like about it, bearing in mind that a look at the aerodynamics will tell you it probably flies pretty well, considering:

a) It's a Beaver, and
b) It has a PT-6.

Compared to a real Mark III, it has a standard fuselage, so the same amount of room inside as a standard mark I.

They completely re-did the fuel system, making it similar to a Caravan with fuel in the wings and tank selectors on the roof. I think this helps with endurance because the turbine uses more fuel per hour, and since the fuselage is the same size, they couldn't make the standard tanks bigger.

They kept the standard DH tail, which although it looks nice, and they managed it because they didn't stretch the fuselage, I bet it's pretty torque-ey on takeoff!

I think, as an operator, if you don't need the extra space that you get from a real turbo beaver, you'd probably find it a pretty useful plane, especially if you're used to a normal mark I.

HOWEVER. I'll tell you why I don't like it. This is just my opinion, and doesn't have much to do with whether it flies well or not.

- It looks terrible. The engine is faired into the fuselage in the most hideous way imagineable.
- Wipair decided to peel anything with the DH logo out of there and replace it with their own. I find this crass, and speaks to my experience with Wip, which is they overpromise and underdeliver. They claim "their" Beaver is "completely reengineered". Why? It's not like the original plane needed some damnyankee tinkering with anything other than the engine. I've extensively flown piston and turbine beavers, and I find Wip's speed claims are completely out of order. None of their modifications could possibly improve on the speed of a mark III. Aerodynamically, it's still just a Beaver.
- It's obviously on Wipline floats, which will get holes in them simply by hitting water molecules.


Frankly, the whole thing reminds me of the American tendency to believe they do everything better than anyone else, simply by painting a flag on the side of someone else's work. You'd think if they had come to some kind of bush-flying epiphany, their "Boss Beaver" would have sold like hotcakes in Alaska, yet it hasn't.

I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be a useful enough aeroplane, other than fuelling the wings like a Cessna introduces some dockside 9hassle. But it sure is an ugly ducky, and something about Wipaire and their presumptuous city-slicker approach to bush-flying and "fixing" things that didn't need fixing in the first place rubs me the wrong way.

And since this is an "opinion" forum, I felt free to give you my opinion!
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
User avatar
geodoc
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Closer than Objects Usually Appear

Re: Boss Beaver

Post by geodoc »

I flew one for a little while.

1) It was a very early production model so did not have a 'flapper valve' kit to prevent fuel transfer / imbalance. If I recall correctly it was 200 lb. max. imbalance allowed per the POH (or am I thinking of the Caravan? It's been a while). Just taxiing for 10 minutes and it could and usually did, have more than that when starting out 50 / 50 per wing fuel load. I don't know if the flapper valve mod was effective.

2) Wipaire apparently was aware of its terrible 'tail wag' yaw problem so they had a yaw damper installed. The one in this early S/N aircraft was apparently functional but utterly ineffective. I seem to recall that there was a later, 'improved' yaw damper in later models. Again, I have no info on whether it was effective or not.

In short, I'd rather have hot needle stuck into my eyes than be subjected to another one. Now a Mk III, whole different story. Pure bliss.
---------- ADS -----------
 
PointsNorth
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:53 am

Re: Boss Beaver

Post by PointsNorth »

Sounds exactly as one would think, Thanks for the info guys!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rowdy
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5165
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:26 pm
Location: On Borrowed Wings

Re: Boss Beaver

Post by Rowdy »

I too have flown one. The updated yaw damper is useless. The fuel system is an abomination.

As a personal toy, it might be ok, but anyone thats flown a real turbo beaver or operate ANY dehavilland product commercially, you'll not care for it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Bush Flying & Specialty Air Service”