* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Topsites *Weather * Media Kit
It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:56 am



All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:58 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 12
I am new on the forum I am retired man . I have been flying for more than 60 years( I still own my license, but don't fly anymore) . I started to fly in June 1938 , I was 12 years old with my father on a Nieuport surplus of war. I had the chance in my life to fly a lot of planes on floats and I have prepared a TOP ten. I owned several float planes during my long life. I will ad my + and the - for each aircraft. Here is my personal list. You can change it and comments !! Be ready!

BEST

1- Maule M-7-260 on Baumann floats. Best STOL aircraft I have ever flowned
+ can take off and land on a dime
+ 260 Engine is wonderful
+ wonderful view
- Not recommended for old Cessna pilot because very hard to control while landing in crosswind upon the water

2- Helio Super Courier H-295 on PK floats
+ a real horse, a Cessna 185, but with a Piper Cub hearth
- Maintenance is expensive $$$
- Not recommended for novice pilot

3- Cessna 185 ( STOL Kit) with several floats EDO, etc...
+ Can be overloaded as a dump truck and still take off
+ Never let you down
- Used price more and more ridiculous...

4- Piper Cup PA-18 on Edo 2000
+ Best two Seater
+ can take off and land on a needle
+ You can break it and repair it right away
- Used price more and more and more ridiculous, pay mine less than 12000$ sold it at 85000$ 8 years ago...

5- Super Stinson 108 converted on Edo 2425
+ Best Cruiser
+ Best aircraft ever built (built like tank)
- Land like a rock upon the water
- Not enough space

6- Aeronca Sedan on Edo
+ Nice four seat
+ Can be beated hard
- Lack of power

7- Cessna 180 ( STOL Kit) on Edo
+ very good cruiser
- Give me one reason not to buy one ...ah yeah 50 000$ difference with a Super Stinson...

8- Bellanca Citabria on floats ( I don't remember)
+ a Perfect aircraft for small budget
- Not STOL

9 -Found aircraft on Edo ( Old Version )
+ Nice four seat with good loaded capacity
- Very bad control Better land in the threes than upon the water. you want to kill you? Buy one!

10- Luscombe Sedan on Edo ( not legal anymore)
+ Can beat any Cessna 180, any Stinson at that time
+ Wonderful exotic aircraft have you ever flown in a Cadillac?
- Last time I saw one on float was in July 1959 and still remember it.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:05 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 am
Posts: 554
The Helio Courier interests me, there were 2 for sale in Alberta a couple of weeks ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:22 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 12
There are on sale because they cost 30 000$ to overhaul and pieces are getting hard to get. Owners tried to sell them just a bit before the major overhaul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:48 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:25 am
Posts: 164
Location: Sask
#1 - The DHC-2 Beaver (with two seats taken out)

I don't have anything for #2 - #10


_________________
Flying a twin only doubles your chance of having an engine failure


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:20 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:39 pm
Posts: 1125
Location: Rock 101
I've never had too much to do with them but I would think a Doyne Converted, (O-360), Cessna 170 with McCauley C/S prop on 2870s, Wing-X wing extensions, Roberson STOL and V.G.s would be a pretty good airplane. It might be a question of weather or not a person would want to put that kind of investment into an old 170, but I think you end up with a reliable, good performer that's quite miserly on gas, nice looking & have the benefits of being all-metal.

A disadvantage to both the 170 and Stinson 108, (particullarilly the 108), is difficult loading.

I've always loved the 108 though.


_________________
The fastest way to turn money into smoke and noise..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:18 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:00 am
Posts: 1092
Location: South-East Asia
Cool post THEpilot! I liked the looks of the Helio stuff. Maybe with a engine mod STC they could be brought back to life? I saw a new Bellanca Scout on amphibs with a 210 HP fuel injected engine and 15 hrs TTAF in Selkirk in 2005. $189,000 US. Not cheap anymore... :shock:

_________________
Drinking lots of coffee lately, at a nice safe jungle desk, wishing I were flying......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:02 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
Posts: 2916
Location: Always moving
The new Husky fly's better than a Super Cub both on wheels and floats.

_________________
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:05 am 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 12
I have never flown a Husky, so I cannot tell you how it handles, but I am sure about something. It's overpriced. No floats a husky is sold 215 000$ US ...no big deal. What I know I would rather buy a Maule M-7-260 for 20000$ less, 4 seats, full room. new from the factory .If you know aerodynamics and physics, on paper The Husky cannot beat the Maule with a 260 hp on take off and landing. Sure it takes more gas but I am pretty sure you will not spend 20000$ of gas-difference in 10 years...Better than a Maule with a 260 is a Helicopter or one with the Allison Turbo...and you can easily buy a used one on floats very low time for 160000$ That's my two cents...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:23 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
Posts: 2916
Location: Always moving
Quote:
I have never flown a Husky, so I cannot tell you how it handles, but I am sure about something. It's overpriced. No floats a husky is sold 215 000$ US ...no big deal.


The Husky I have here cost $240,000.00 USD on Whipline 2500 Amphibious floats, yes it is expensive but not that more expensive than a new Super Cub.
Quote:
What I know I would rather buy a Maule M-7-260 for 20000$ less, 4 seats, full room. new from the factory .If you know aerodynamics and physics, on paper The Husky cannot beat the Maule with a 260 hp on take off and landing. Sure it takes more gas but I am pretty sure you will not spend 20000$ of gas-difference in 10 years...


We bought the Husky for a purpose and a two place was what we needed.

Quote:
Better than a Maule with a 260 is a Helicopter or one with the Allison Turbo...and you can easily buy a used one on floats very low time for 160000$ That's my two cents...


A client of mine wanted to buy a Maule M7-420A with the Allison turbine on Whipline 3000 Amphibious floats. After flying it I advised my client not to even consider buying it at any price.

It was the biggest disappointment I ever had as far as the handling characteristics of any airplane goes.

My two cents on the Maule with a turbine is it was not worth two cents


_________________
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:03 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 12
Maule with the Allison burns too much fuel, you have to flight it with a gas tank ah ah...This is the reason why they stopped to produce it. But still a nice flyer. I worked all my life long as aircraft engineer, and I don't think the new Piper or the Husky worth their price. 240 000$ for a two seater, fabric made, sorry aircrafts company have too much deep pockets. Floats company are even worst. I had the chance 3 years ago to visit the aircraft facilities in Estonia and Latvia. They got a lot of handful aircraft technicien and engineers from the old USSR and newer young one who studied abort especially here in Canada. I saw a company that worked on a new FAA approved design for a two seaters STOL. They are now in EU and aircraft technician earn less money than here and in the US maybe half less. Just watch out this new fabric aircraft at unbeatable price made in Riga...If the some USA aircraft companies cannot give a correct products at a correct price. They will finish like GMC. Maule can produce a full equipped aircraft with a 260 hp (more expensive), full avionics ( more expensive) and floats for the same price than Husky and a New Cubcrafters cubs at the same price or even less. I think there is something wrong there. I know those are excellent aircrafts. The Husky is well made, and the Piper also, but they command too high price for what it is. I know the price of aircraft materials and this is too expensive. They lack of competitons...Just imagine GM selling you a compact car for 15000$ with 100HP , not equipped, Dodge selling a compact with 105HP car for the same price, not half equipped, and Ford an intermediate car full equipped with a 200HP engine for the same price, I am sure everyone is taking the Ford first. Those three companies are located in the USA... and their employees are all pay in US dollars. I just don't understand why they asked so much. After the Japanese cars invasion, look the former USSR countries aircraft invasion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:19 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
Posts: 2916
Location: Always moving
Quote:
Maule with the Allison burns too much fuel, you have to flight it with a gas tank ah ah...This is the reason why they stopped to produce it. But still a nice flyer.


My experience with the turbine Maule was far from what you claim.

There were several very serious issues with the way it flew and also with the method of controlling the prop condition selections.

One of the most serious defects in this conversion was the lack of forward vision especially when taxiing on the step as you are blind for about 30 degrees straight ahead.

Without a zero thrust latch it is a real hand full for docking in confined quarters and if you miss the first attempt and have to restart you are really in a bad situation as it takes thirty seconds after starter engagement until you get control of the prop.

It is not a good float plane period.

Oh I forgot it is very is yaw unstable in any turbulence which was very annoying.


_________________
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:03 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 12
I agree with you the Allison in a Maule was not the best idea, but it does take off! It was a very expensive aircraft too. Better with the 260 engine. You are right probably right for the imbalance on floats. I would not have bought one either. I have never flown a Maule with the Allison so I cannot tell you how it handles on landing. ( What I saw is that it took off more quickly than the 260) .That's the only thing I would say... I miswrite my idea in the post, ( English is not my mother tongue) I just made a supposion... Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:06 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
Posts: 2916
Location: Always moving
THEpilot, no need to explain. :smt040

We are only sharing our thoughts about these airplanes.

I agree that North American airplanes are way over priced but soon the USA will be so broke they won't have an airplane industry.


_________________
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:19 pm 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am
Posts: 2470
Thepilot,

As an engineer you may be able to answer. I did a comparison of take off distances and stall speeds for small 2-4 seat aircraft. I found that stall speed is pretty much solely dependent on wing loading (advantage if you have leading edge devices) and take off distance was pretty much dependent on power loading.

What I'm trying to say that regardless of the design, you put a low enough power loading on it and anything else, airfoil, aspect ratio, etc. makes very little difference.

With this in mind, a Cessna 150 could have roughly the same take off distance as a super cub if you put 150-180hp in it.

Would you agree?

If so, is there really much point in raving about aircraft performance if it's simply a function of simple parameters?

Great thread.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:23 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:41 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Chapleau, ON
Bede wrote:
Thepilot,

What I'm trying to say that regardless of the design, you put a low enough power loading on it and anything else, airfoil, aspect ratio, etc. makes very little difference.

With this in mind, a Cessna 150 could have roughly the same take off distance as a super cub if you put 150-180hp in it.



Theres a lot to be said for horse power, but wing design is definitely a big factor in landing/ takeoff/ cruise performance.


_________________
Flying with Rick video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6my0FM9F_Q&feature=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:07 am 
Offline
Rank 6
Rank 6

Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 441
Yup....the de Havilland wing is a beautiful thing......for takeoff and landing at least


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:33 am 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 12
Be sure if you buy a Cessna 150 converted with a 150HP or 180HP ,you have got the "G" model because the nose has been modified by Cessna to reduce the drag on floats. The Cessna 150 is wonderful aircraft and I forgot to put it in my list. A friend of mine owned one for almost 20 years. The Cessna 150 with a Horton Stol kit is amazing, but cannot beat the Super Cub on landing weight/power/stall speed, but the difference is not that high, others factors can change the course of the aircraft - Wind-Weather-Water Strip ( near a mountain or not) I'll say take off is about the same.( I owned a Pa-18 super cub for several years ) The Cessna 150 is a better aircraft than the piper Super Cub. The Quality built is almost unbeatable, Cessna employees did a wonderful job. Only two others company built better made aircraft on floats in 50's and the 60's than Cessna and it was Stinson and De Havilland . Now sold at aroud 70 000$ US. It is a very good aircraft to consider. Better made, better ceiling ( on long distance you can safe a lot of fuel), 40 degres flaps and I am sure Cessna did not made a lot money selling that aircraft in the 60's. Cessna did a wonderful MODERN aircraft. If you don't have to land in restricted area and very small lake. I don't see any reason not buying a 150/150/180 instead of any two seaters. This is aircraft cost more to maintain than A Bellanca or a Pa-18, but if I look at the price on used market. 30000$ less than USED PA-18. I won't be shy to buy one. My first aircraft on floats was a Fairchild 24 bought just after the war with a Warner 165 and I needed the Pacific Ocean to land, so landing don't bother me to much. Learn the capabilities of your aircraft and the sky is the limit :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:46 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
Posts: 2916
Location: Always moving
The Cessna 150 with the bigger engine is a good performer on floats for sure......

But like a lot of so called improvements to certified airplanes it has some down sides.

I owned a Cessna 150 / 150 on Edo 1600 floats with the Horton STOL kit that I bought for float plane ratings, I finally sold it because of the limited usable load and the limited range due to the higher fuel burn.

My favorite single engine sea plane is the Sea Bee.


_________________
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:32 am 
Offline
Rank 10
Rank 10
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am
Posts: 2470
Chuck Ellsworth wrote:

My favorite single engine sea plane is the Sea Bee.


Why do you always get to fly cool airplanes?

Anyways, I'm not sure how much wing design has to do with decent performance. The cubs have a large wing area (no brainer there) and a Clark Y airfoil which is one of the oldest and simplest in the book. Wing tips aren't the most efficient considering what's available now (Herner, etc) Most aircraft now use a 44XX or 230XX airfoil which has slightly better Clmax than the Clark Y.

Let's say I design an airplane with the same wing and power loading as a super cub, I doubt the super cub would have much better performance.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:32 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 12
TRUE, There is not a big difference, That's why I think the Pilot, the floats or the weather are very important factors to consider too. It is sure that a aircraft design with a 4412, 4415, 23012 etc... airfoils will give you better performance (slightly better) than the old Clark. NOTHING to do with the aircraft itself. The cub was an easy design for a very capable CHEAP and EASY aircraft which is not the case anymore. I won't spend 250 000$ for new one for sure. A realistic price for a used Cub PA-18 should be aroud 45 000$ or less not 100 000$ or more. If you can buy a cheaper modern aircraft go ahead. The only advantage of owning a cub is that parts are ready and easy to get and you can fix it yourselves. It is a very good aircraft to own if you are hard with your airplanes...The Cub is a capable aircraft, but still is handicaped with its 1920's design...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:23 am 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:12 am
Posts: 2
wanted your opinion on the 1941 stinson 10a with 0290d lycoming as a possible candidate for floats? you seem very knowledgeable on the subject............


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:57 pm 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:27 pm
Posts: 12
Floats on Stinson 10A are not approved. It will cost you more than the aircraft to float it even if it would be approved. At least 30000 to 40000$. Floats are even not approved for Stinson 108-1 . Why not buying a Stinson already floated. A Stinson with a 210 HP Continental or 220 HP Franklin retails aroud 50000$. If Fuel is a issue for you, buy a Stinson with a Franklin 180 HP or Lycoming 0-320 180 HP, especially the Franklin, better engine. avoid 0-435 engine 190 HP sucks too much fuel around 16 to 18 GPH ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:31 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:06 pm
Posts: 3978
Location: Switzerland
Reading this thread makes me want to have a beer with THEpilot and the rest of you, on a dock somewhere in the bush.

_________________
bmc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:19 am 
Offline
Rank 0
Rank 0

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:15 am
Posts: 12
I will second that idea bmc.I think it would be very educational you know beer and all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:13 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:31 pm
Posts: 248
If I could make a choice..... piston. it would be a helio courier with an IO520-d and edo 3430 floats. Or the PA-18 180 with a fixed pitch seaplane prop and cap 2000's. Or i'd just say @#$! it, wake up and buy a beaver.

_________________
"I had a pilot's breakfast ... A coffee and a piss followed by a donut and a dump." -D. Elegant


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

 
For questions/comments please send them to
webmaster@avcanada.ca


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this  forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as  quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a  topic or post is inappropriate email us at support@avcanada.ca .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that  all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and  not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these  people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site.   

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
  When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal  behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.