Russian "Beaver"

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:46 am

http://www.utility-aircraft.com/planes/technoavia.htm

Found one for $100K US. And they got a turbine Version.

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:09 am

i have seen this a/c in the US. very capable looking a/c. kinda funny lookin' though. Not nearly as pretty as a DH2.

I_Drive_Planes · Post by **I_Drive_Planes** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:27 pm

Looks kind of like an overgrown Wilga.

Planes

KenoraPilot · Post by **KenoraPilot** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:47 am

Give me a canadian Beaver any day!

Over the Horn · Post by **Over the Horn** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:02 pm

SWANK DUDE!!

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:16 am

I wonder how it is for load capacity, the landing gear dosnt look nearly as built as the DHC2, nice plane, but I agree there is nothing better in this world than some good beaver

Northern Skies · Post by **Northern Skies** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:18 am

hmmm let's see.........

Max Gross (from factory, before any STC's):
-SM92: 5170lbs
-Beaver: 5100lbs

Engines:
-SM92: Vedenyev M-14 360hp (btw I hear this is a fabulous, extremely rugged engine, with generator versions going far over 20000h without major maintenance.... the airstart seems to be a feature in favour of the bush, although I do not know what is required when the can runs out of air)
-Beaver: Pratt & Whitney R985 450hp (most of you can speak for this better than me)

Power loading @ max gross:
-SM92: 14.36 lbs/hp
-Beaver: 11.33 lbs/hp
I understand this means the Beaver would accelerate better on takeoff, onto the step faster, with more reserve power. (*not taking into account differences in the floats)(p.s. out of curiosity I calculated for the polish otter and got 8.5 lbs/hp!)

Useful load (not stated payload calculations.... I just dropped BEW from the gross):
-SM92: 2090 lbs
-Beaver: 2250 lbs

I wanted to figure out the fuel-per-pound of payload-per-mile question, but I can't find the proper figures on the SM92, so i'll go to my opinion...

The SM92 looks like it's great for those who aren't going to kid themselves when hearing that the bush hawk can approach the Beaver's performance, but are penny-pinchers looking for something of that nature. On first look, I see the SM92's border patrol origins are apparent in the smaller engine and high aspect-ratio wing. This could tie over to a savings for those who are travelling on longer routes if the aircraft's payload fits their requirements. However if I was given a choice between the two, the most rugged monster-beast bushplane would be the ideal choice, and the Dehavilland product stands out in its ruggedness and reliability. I think that someone expecting a 360hp airplane to haul a Beaver load can expect long takeoffs, shallow climbs, and nursing the airplane in that way. The SM92 looks great for the role it was meant for: long patrols with somewhat of a load, in and out of unprepared strips. I think it will find a niche in Canada, but I don't see it as a Beaver replacement.

But who am I kidding, I'll fly anything.

Northern Skies · Post by **Northern Skies** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:20 am

I wonder why the board won't let me type the short form for "pounds". Someones initials?

lb .... lbs ... l b

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:56 pm

Ya I guess it would come down to $$$$ if you can get one of these used for 100K compared to whatever a beavers going for I think it could really be usefull in Canada as a 206/207 replacement.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:18 am

Northern Skies wrote:I wonder why the board won't let me type the short form for "pounds". Someones initials?

** .... lbs ... l b

maybe too many people bitching about Arctic Sunwest CP L.B

trying to write L.b's

2R · Post by 2R » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:52 pm

IT just goes to show what how smart those guys that built the original Beaver were as nobody has come close to beating it.I guess that is why they chose the name beaver as well ,cause you can beat an egg but you cannot beat a good beaver.ok the Caravan and the Norseman guys can get busy now,but admit it we all love The Beaver

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:37 pm

185_guy · Post by **185_guy** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:52 pm

IT just goes to show what how smart those guys that built the original Beaver were

Well they did have the Norseman to work off of, and use it as a way to 'improve' the ideal bushplane.

Except for the shorter take-off's and less cargo-loading, i'll take the Norseman any day. Built like a brick shithouse(well, flys like one too!!) But it is an exellent plane for what it was designed to do, and considering what they had to work with back in 1935