* AvCanada's Home Page * Photo Gallery * Directory * Topsites *Weather *Enter Chat * Media Kit
It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 11:36 pm



All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is chatting

Who is chatting
Enter Chat




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:24 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:17 am
Posts: 1727
Location: west to east
lets see, the caravan is underpowered already, and you want to add another 500#ish to the weight, good luck


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:57 pm 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:47 pm
Posts: 782
Location: between 60 and 70
The weight of AvGas vs Jet would likely counter most of the weight difference in engines, but with several turbine conversions available, I can't see a market for a piston engine caravan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:41 pm
Posts: 16
In my opinion it is ugly as sin. But then so is the pointy nosed otter when comapared to the original. Someone is always trying to invent a better mouse trap and the Trace Beaver is proof that it always doen't work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:40 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:35 am
Posts: 45
Location: Campbell River BC Canada
ragbagflyer wrote:
Does the TRACE engine have a reversible prop?

Yes. It's a four blade reversing MT composite prop.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:31 am
Posts: 16664
Quote:
In my opinion it is ugly as sin.


I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder, I sort of like it, for sure it is far from ugly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:58 pm 
Online
Rank 11
Rank 11
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:53 pm
Posts: 4693
Location: Basement wifi, Arches wifi or Camp ground wifi.
Is the prop a four blade partially because it is an 8 cylinder engine?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 2:14 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 625
Well if it performs as advertized, and is reliable, with the power (if it's really a comparable 600 hp) and speed anywhere near 190 MPH, and the SFC of the water cooled engine, this would be a game changer. No standard beaver would be able to compete. Just curious though FS, what is the projected cost of a an O/H or replacement engine once the mod is incorporated?

And I'm with Cat, I think it looks neat, not that I think the standard Beaver looks bad ( I like the radial engine profile), but it still looks nicer than the rat-nosed MK III. ... and since when did looks equate into how an airplane makes money for its owners anyways?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 2:18 am 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:52 pm
Posts: 76
I'm with bobo on this.

The Beaver with the 985 is better looking.
The Otter with the 1340 is to.
It hard to get round engines out of us guys.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 2:23 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:00 pm
Posts: 871
Location: South-East Asia
Yeah for sure. But if it really is quiet and smooth... Hmm....

I find myself often saying "EH?" because I really have a bit of hearing loss. I blame the turbines on the dock more than the beautiful PZL 1820. But I am hoping to hear the grandkids talk so it would be good to have a quieter engine... :rolleyes:

Plus, the less vibration on the airframe would be good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 2:45 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:31 am
Posts: 16664
Some of the comments here got me to thinking about radial engines and I am trying to remember how many different airplanes I have flown with radials on them.

So....as I recall the first one was a Stinson SR9 then the Stearman then the Beech 18 then the Beaver then the Norseman then the Otter then the DC3 then the PBY then the DC6 then the C117....

....way over 10,000 hours on radials as I recall.

But I still think that Beaver with the V8 looks real cool. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 3:30 am 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 5615
Location: The Misty Mountains...
Some might not be aware of this, but the Beaver was originally supposed to have the Gipsy Major engine rather than the 985. This is why the cowling and the fuselage are faired together so badly and why it has such awesome STOL performance--it was designed to have much less power. I wonder what the history of the Beaver would have been like if they had kept the Gipsy? Would we all be as obsessed and say that real engines are upside down ones? :lol: More likely, it would have been relegated to the scrap heaps of history like the underpowered Fairchild Husky.

For an operator making money, looks and heritage come dead last. Operators who choose an airplane or engine because it is 'cool' and then try to make it work go broke fast. Most Otters are now turbine because they make far more economic sense as a turbine aircraft.

The TRACE engine though has much larger hurdles to make it through than looks and heritage. The power plant itself seems excellent. The performance looks amazing. Even the price--with some reservations--isn't that bad. This would look even more promising if we could start getting TBOs into multi thousand hour range.... it's competing with engines from the 1930s... how hard could it be? That not only translates to less engine reserve, but less downtime and potentially less overhaul cost.

But there are many potential problems How long will it be supported or is this another pie-in-the-sky venture that will go belly up in a few years? Will it be able to run auto gas or is this just a late comer to the pack of dinosaur 100LL engines slowly plodding towards extinction? People have sought to change the reciprocating engine game before in aviation with innovative ideas--remember the Porsche Mooney? It died an early death because that engine failed on every conceivable level from performance to economics to weight to simplicity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 4:07 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:31 am
Posts: 16664
Ahh the upside down gipsy's..

Remember that neat little twin with the gipsy queens in it?

We had two of them at a company I used to fly for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 5:56 am 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:17 am
Posts: 3071
Location: West Coast
iflyforpie wrote:
Some might not be aware of this, but the Beaver was originally supposed to have the Gipsy Major engine rather than the 985. This is why the cowling and the fuselage are faired together so badly and why it has such awesome STOL performance--it was designed to have much less power. I wonder what the history of the Beaver would have been like if they had kept the Gipsy? Would we all be as obsessed and say that real engines are upside down ones? :lol: More likely, it would have been relegated to the scrap heaps of history like the underpowered Fairchild Husky.

For an operator making money, looks and heritage come dead last. Operators who choose an airplane or engine because it is 'cool' and then try to make it work go broke fast. Most Otters are now turbine because they make far more economic sense as a turbine aircraft.

The TRACE engine though has much larger hurdles to make it through than looks and heritage. The power plant itself seems excellent. The performance looks amazing. Even the price--with some reservations--isn't that bad. This would look even more promising if we could start getting TBOs into multi thousand hour range.... it's competing with engines from the 1930s... how hard could it be? That not only translates to less engine reserve, but less downtime and potentially less overhaul cost.

But there are many potential problems How long will it be supported or is this another pie-in-the-sky venture that will go belly up in a few years? Will it be able to run auto gas or is this just a late comer to the pack of dinosaur 100LL engines slowly plodding towards extinction? People have sought to change the reciprocating engine game before in aviation with innovative ideas--remember the Porsche Mooney? It died an early death because that engine failed on every conceivable level from performance to economics to weight to simplicity.


The original proposed engine was the Gypsy Queen a 400 hp Supercharged 6 cylinder inverted engine developing 400 hp, not the 150 hp Gypsy Major, because the British bosses of DH wanted them to use a British engine. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed and the POS British engine was dropped in favour of the legendary P & W R985.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 6:00 am 
Online
Top Poster
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 5615
Location: The Misty Mountains...
:oops: I was lazy and took a chance on not Googling it.... I thought the Major was the bigger engine.... like the 4360 Wasp Major.... just imagine that on the nose of the Beav!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 6:23 am 
Offline
Rank 8
Rank 8

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:00 pm
Posts: 871
Location: South-East Asia
The Gaffrays put a 600 HP PZL on a Beaver back in the 80's. Awesome performance. Kinda bad visibility. I remember when it got sold to a guy who in short order spread it all over the bush. :rolleyes:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 5:20 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:35 am
Posts: 45
Location: Campbell River BC Canada
Tanker299 wrote:
What's the overhaul going to cost? And what will be involved in it? New engine, sleeves?


Overhaul is $40,000. If required, the steel cylinder sleeves are bored out 0.010" over. The sleeves can be bored up to 0.030" over in multiple overhauls. The consumables such as all bearings are replaced.

Our current price for an O/H on a R985 is about $34,000 at about the same TBO. A typical turbine overhaul is $200,000 or more at about 3600 hours. (On the turbine you'd have the $25,000 hotsection at about 1800 hours as well).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 7:55 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 am
Posts: 67
Hornblower wrote:
No standard beaver would be able to compete.


With a 5600lbs upgross & anything over 150mph neither would any turbine otter. For camp operators who only operate 6 months a year this is the answer (as long as it is reliable). It would have no problem taking 4 guys and all their gear 150 miles away everytime. No more cessna overloads or having to put the 4 guys in the otter because they had too much shit. As for TRACE's 750hp, maybe put that in an otter? I know the orenda was underpowered but this one may be the way to go instead of the turbine. I know that an operator here in Red Lake paid over 750k to convert his otter coming up 3 years ago. Not sure if they have even been able to pay it off yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:11 am 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:58 pm
Posts: 625
flyingsafely wrote:
Overhaul is $40,000.


That's very comparable, and if you take into account the increased speed, decreased SFC and higher gross, there is probably a significant $/lb/mile advantage ... too lazy to figure it out now though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 4:04 am 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:01 pm
Posts: 212
Location: Earth
I'm with Cat. it looks pretty good and Bill Alder is involved, he knows his Beavers, I had a discussion with him in Victoria at the Viking conference. I think one day in the not too far future, we will not be able to operate the 985 commercially on the Beaver. This could well be an alternative to a turbine. Maybe just my paranoia, when it comes to TC, but there you have it. I will probably get trashed for saying it, it is just my opinion, I sincerely hope I am wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 7:02 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 217
I started looking into the Thunder in the '80s. My thought was it would be a common engine for almost the whole fleet, Dhc-2,3,6 , Goose and Mallard. Seems to me the Thunder was to get something like .47 hp/lb (fuel)/hr. which was better than even the 985 I think and the extra 100 horses would have been nice on the Otter. Too bad all these years later and the thing is still in development.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:19 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:55 am
Posts: 286
Location: Between a dock and a hard place.
This thread is useless without an audio clip of the V8 at take-off power. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:59 pm 
Offline
Rank 11
Rank 11

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:06 am
Posts: 3623
Location: Switzerland
I think it looks ok.

It would be interesting to do the number crunching of operating that machine on a sched run. More payload and faster trips could mean more revenue than you could realize with a stock machine. Depending on your operation, it would be interesting to find the break even point.

flyingsafely....what is the sales pitch regarding breakeven on the investment? You must have some numbers based on some scenarios.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:01 am 
Offline
Rank 3
Rank 3

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:16 am
Posts: 134
Location: FL280
I like the look too, too bad its not a diesel and burn Jet A !
100LL is expensive and getting harder to get up north.

What kind of fuel burn and cruise speed are we talking ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 11:35 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:05 pm
Posts: 79
I heard pretty high 30-35 gallons / hour. But that's second had would be nice to know the official numbers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:43 pm 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:17 am
Posts: 1727
Location: west to east
Road Trip wrote:
I heard pretty high 30-35 gallons / hour. But that's second had would be nice to know the official numbers.



They show 500 hp for cruise so if that is the case, fuel flows aren't bad. the proof in the pudding would be a side by side fly off, using the same fuel flows, and comparing speeds.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beaverlover, Beefitarian, black hole, psbot [Picsearch], wowo and 12 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.