Beech 18 on floats.

[Cat Driver]

I've seen you post this before and write 25,000 hours. You've put quite a few on in the past few years. That Husky of yours must be very busy.

Really?

You are suggesting that I exaggerate my experience as a pilot?

O.K....fair enough after sixty years of flying most everything in aviation and not really keeping an accurate record of my time I need to justify my experience to you?

So be it, then lets just take my last employer as an example.

The last company I flew for was Miramax of Holly wood California and my job was flying in a movie for them, I made more money for two weeks work than a lot of you Canadian experts make in a year......the big hurdle to be accepted as a pilot for that type of flying is getting insured by Lloyds of London...they were satisfied with my qualifications..

So how about you offering your services as a pilot to Miramax and lets see if you can get insured to on their insurance requirements.

Good luck in your venture ., but like I already said, if the guy can afford a Jet Ranger for personal use, he can afford a better, safer and more logical float plane to serve his business needs.

Trust me he can afford a Jet Ranges for personal use, and my position in his company involves deciding what aircraft we use or buy.

Aircraft are nothing more than mechanical tools we use to transport people and move material as needed.....the most difficult thing we have to deal with in this sector of our business is pilots because that is the weak link in the chain.

Fortunately I have no problem sorting out qualified reliable pilots from the self important wannabes.

[fish4life]

All I'm saying is sometimes it doesn't matter how good of a pilot you may or may not be if you are flying floats there is very few lakes long enough that you will clearing the trees by more than 100-200 feet. I'm not talking about scraping by tops but generally accepted as safe practices at the end of the day. Sometimes you need a little luck on your side either that or just fly that beech 18 into only 10% of lakes that it is capable of.

On a side note I do have lots of respect for you . I just disagree in this instance

[Big Pistons Forever]

The mission determines the "right" airplane for the job. Ideally you should start with a totally open mind and evaluate all the possible airplanes that can do the job with no preconceived notion of what is the right airplane. I believe that
there are still probably a business case for the Beech 18. Whether this venture is one of them is up to the principals to decide...and then live with the consequences.

[Rowdy]

The -18 is cheaper to buy than a dhc3T or caravan, faster than the otter too, easier to handle on the water than both with differential power AND water rudders(no big jesus vertical stab either).. It has classic looks, makes a beautiful sound and flies well. An engine failure is not a death sentence as some of you seem to portray.. no more so than the DHC3T or caravan if a stove quits at 100ft over the trees, hell, a loaded 100 series twin otter at 100ft trying to out climb the trees could be sketchy… Whats an overhaul cost on a PT6 or TPE these days? Probably a lot more than BOTH 985's… I chuckled when I read someone quote the fuel burn of the turbines at 10,000ft vs the burn of the 985's at sea level (where it will pretty much always be operated) Not a fair comparison. Plus, one would also have to look at cycles with the turban.

A case can be made for each and every one of these aircraft. If you're looking for a unique 'classic' to fly well off guests around on the west coast, the =18 could be a viable solution.

JAC - pretty sure the water around here can't be confused with the lakes of the rest of flat land canada

[Just another canuck]

Really?

You are suggesting that I exaggerate my experience as a pilot?

O.K....fair enough after sixty years of flying most everything in aviation and not really keeping an accurate record of my time I need to justify my experience to you?

No, I don't suspect for an instant you would exaggerate. And like most old timers I know, you probably stopped filling out your log book long ago. But when you write one number then another, people notice. That's all. But here's a question, simply out of curiosity... if Miramax has such strict insurance guidelines, I find it strange they did not want to look at your log book. I guess they simply took your word for it? If it is such a difficult insurance policy to get your name on, then that just seems odd. Or perhaps you used references, of which I'm sure you have plenty.

Trust me he can afford a Jet Ranges for personal use, and my position in his company involves deciding what aircraft we use or buy.

Fair enough, but do you think if your business partner were to read this thread or perhaps get outside opinions on the Twin Beech, would he think you were making the correct choice in aircraft? It is simply of my opinion that because the aircraft loses in literally every category, it is the wrong plane for the job. Choosing it because it's "a pleasure to fly" and it's a "great collector's item" seems that you would be choosing it for your own personal desires and not what is best for the operator.

The -18 is cheaper to buy than a dhc3T or caravan, faster than the otter too

Cheaper initially, yes, but in the long run, maybe not. And as I already pointed out, the Otter can get up high and true out a speed that is nearly equal to the Beech. Find some good winds and you're going faster.

An engine failure is not a death sentence as some of you seem to portray.. no more so than the DHC3T or caravan if a stove quits at 100ft over the trees, hell, a loaded 100 series twin otter at 100ft trying to out climb the trees could be sketchy

A fully loaded Beech on a hot day would not fly on one engine. Hell, just blowing a jug on one could be detrimental if it were at the wrong phase of flight and the wrong conditions. And the likelihood of that happening versus a failing turbine is far, far, far greater.

Whats an overhaul cost on a PT6 or TPE these days? Probably a lot more than BOTH 985's

PT6 overhaul is... and correct me if I'm wrong... somewhere around 3500 hours when you first start. Most operators I've ran into do them around 5000. A TPE is, I believe 8000 hours. What are 985's? 1200 hours? Again, please anyone in the know fix these numbers for me but I believe I'm in the right ball park anyway.

I chuckled when I read someone quote the fuel burn of the turbines at 10,000ft vs the burn of the 985's at sea level (where it will pretty much always be operated) Not a fair comparison.

Why is it not a fair comparison? It's an accurate one.

JAC - pretty sure the water around here can't be confused with the lakes of the rest of flat land canada

I understand that completely. But I was under the impression it was to be used for more than just coastal flying. Either way, it still loses in all categories. But if it were to be used strictly on the big water, that would certainly make a better case for it.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is a Beech 18 requires a PPC, so your training cost would also be higher. And you also need to find someone to do the ride unless you can .? I know the boys in Ontario all use the same guy out of Ear Falls.

[Cat Driver]

if Miramax has such strict insurance guidelines, I find it strange they did not want to look at your log book. I guess they simply took your word for it? If it is such a difficult insurance policy to get your name on, then that just seems odd. Or perhaps you used references, of which I'm sure you have plenty.

I was working for the Lloyds of London Underwriters at the time as a check pilot and was able to get a $52,000 reduction in the cost of the insurance fee for the movie based on my being the pilot, the policy was written for eight hundred and twenty five million dollars.

This has to be one of the best discussed subjects in a long time on this forum because several people here have pointed out a lot of the reasons the Beech 18 would be a neat choice for the purpose we need it for....all sea level....no short take off areas...a one hundred mile trip leg.....we already have access to a beautiful Beech 18 on floats operated by a very good friend of mine.

And of course the Beech 18 is the nicest flying sea plane I ever flew and I just love them...and I am more than just an employee in the company...I am one of the principals.

In fact I am in bed at a truck stop on I-5 in the brand new forty foot Phaeton motor home I bought to use for company business and this trip is on company business at the company Villla in La Quinta California.

Expensive motor homes are easier to justify owning when they can be used as a tax rite off.

My first real airplane check ride was in a Beech 18 D that I flew for a company in Windsor in 1964 then several years later I flew one on floats for two seasons out of Wawa Ont.

Speaking of crashing into trees after take off....if God forbid it ever happened to me I would want to be in a Beech 18 because they are built like a tank.

[Rowdy]

This is a good discussion! It may quickly turn into a quote within a quote within a quote however. So I'll address your comments and opinions. Also understand that in some instances for the discussion I am merely playing the devils advocate.

An -18 is what, 100k? maybe MAYBE 200 for a NICE one on floats (I looked through barnstormers). The one in which we're talking about is nice and on the coast already and ready to operate, with someone who can do the check ride. So that negates the difficulty in finding someone to do the ride. A VFR PPC is also non issue and a few of the other operators here are required to do them. Including HA in the -3T as they operate them up to 14 pax and at 9000lbs. IIRC they do some initial training in it with it loaded to the legal limit. Far more intensive than what 90% of the bush ops do. Rightfully so. I'm hoping there are some insurance incentives too..

The current market price of an Otter as 'nice' is over a mil (I looked again on barnstormers). That can allow for many engine changes/upgrades. A caravan on floats slides the prices up even higher.

The 985 TBO is 1400 these days and with approval can allow for a variance above that (correct me if I'm wrong, but we had a 10% variance allowing up to an additional 140hrs). Its up to the operator to make sure it makes it there, as I know not all of them make it that far. I have personally had jugs go and made it home safely however. You would simply treat the =18 as a single and you shouldn't have an issue with it. I have also seen FCU's fail on the PT6's.. and know of a few flameouts. The salt out here has it's way with the turbines and can add some additional cost. They are all susceptible. Lets be realistic, all engines fail, all ships can sink. etc etc

What is the cost of that overhaul for a new operator of a pt6 that doesn't have approval to run up and past 5k? I don't have numbers anymore..and was also comparing against the walter.. but last I checked with the reputable 985 shops it varies between 40 and 60k and the condition of the case and some others.

The VFR transits in and around the south coast keep us down low, and many days the weather does as well. It would be poor to forecast flying the machine at 10k and then run it around at 500 or 1000 burning piles more fuel. I'm just being a realist here.. IIRC we planned around 300lb/hr on the -34.. and depending on conditions burned near that. So.. thats close to 50gal/hr ? two 985s are at most 45.. The Otter has speed restrictions too.. What does the -18 true out to in actuality?

Lots to consider. Lots of areas where on paper one bests the others but not necessarily in practice.

[Cat Driver]

Well as far as reliability on different engines I have a few thousand hours flying airplanes with the P&W 985 starting in 1954 in a Stinson SR9, then the Stearman crop dusting, then the Beech 18 on wheels conventional gear and tri gear and then on floats for two seasons, then the Anson Mk5 for about 500 hours, then the Beaver for God only knows how many hours since 1965.

Engine failures? Zero.

Had two P&W PT6's quit on me in the Twin Otter though.

So for me the 985 has been more reliable.

[Tips Up]

.- sent you a pm.

[cory_trevor]

How many exits/emergency exits are there on the Beech 18 and how easily can the passengers access them in the event of an emergency? If I'm correct there are 5 on the Otter and they are very easy to access.

[Cat Driver]

How much spread is there between the normal cruise speed on the turbine Otter and VNE, is the tail structure any concern?

The difference between the cruise and VNE in the Turbo Goose was very narrow and one had to really be aware of it.

[Liquid Charlie]

While the "junior" might possibly be the 2nd best round engine ever built (#1 going to the R2800) it's still an old engine and possibly the combination of beech 18 on floats with reduced airspeed puts it towards the higher end for possibility of failure (not too many float operators do motostats every 50 hours so that is another contributing factor -- rough water -- nope not a good rough water aeroplane - no spreader bars so float mounts take a beating and high speed will eventually split the keels if you venture out into rough water on a regular basis and the largest elephant in the room is the legal load -- to compete with a van or an otter you will have to overload so while it was a great aeroplane in it's day and one I enjoyed very much to fly on floats wheels and skis it has been basically forced into retirement by the times -- also the availability of fuel in so areas as well --- if I won the lottery I would own one on wheels - best play toy anyone could want

[Cat Driver]

Your points are valid Charlie and for a commercial charter operation competing with new turbine aircraft it has those negatives.

For our purpose and for the area we will be using it it will do just fine because we will not be competing with anyone nor will we be concerned about fuel as we will have fuel at the lodge and it will be restricted to six passengers and baggage...so no over gross loads to be concerned about.

All of the above has been clearly explained to the operator who we will be using.

When we want new turbine aircraft to charter the West Coast is over stocked with them.

[Just another canuck]

So, how do you get the fuel there? Fly it in? So, now instead of one trip with a Turbo Otter, it's 3 trips with a Beech? One for the fuel and 2 for the people and cargo, because the Beech load is half that of a Turbo Otter.

When they split the engine on one of the Garrett Otters in Ontario a couple years ago at I believe 4000 hours (maybe 3500), half way to it's overhaul, it cost them under 50 K to get it back up to speed. I can't remember exactly what they had to replace, but other than your average maintenance, maybe a starter, some new batteries every few seasons, I'd say the cost is pretty low in comparison to overhauling two 985's every 1400 hours. And again, the Garrett burns 40 gal/hr or less the higher you climb. You have to do two trips with a Beech for every trip with an Otter. We don't even send our Beaver North anymore unless absolutely necessary, because it's cheaper to send the Otter and you can haul twice as much.

The 10 % you speak of can be applied to almost anything. I had both my FCU's extended 10 % last summer. And speaking of FCU's, doesn't the PT-6 Otter have the same mechanism as the Caravan where if it fails, you can just bypass it and return home for a fix.

Like cory_trevor pointed out, the emergency exits are very poor as well. No one ever intends to crash or cart wheel an aircraft, but it does happen and I say good luck to the pilot and passenger in the right seat as well as anyone in the forward cabin.

The Otter does have speed restrictions. It cruises just below it's Vmo on floats. It's slightly higher on skis. I don't see the real set back here... so you have to throttle back in the descent. The tail structure thing... I've heard lots of hoorah about it, but I've never had a problem and don't know anyone who really has. The few accidents I can think of where it has been thought of as a possible cause... well, nothing was ever proven. I believe my boss said he has an incident with the counterweight on the stab where it came loose or fell off, but he managed to get it on the water. That old radial caused a lot of vibrations.

it has been basically forced into retirement by the times

Exactly. If it still had a place in today's world, then they would be sitting at the dock instead of Otters and Caravans. Hell, I don't think they're allowed to fly in Australia anymore commercially. Perhaps Canada is next?

., next thing you'll be telling us is you bought yourself a Norseman for the smaller groups.

[Cat Driver]

Like cory_trevor pointed out, the emergency exits are very poor as well. No one ever intends to crash or cart wheel an aircraft, but it does happen and I say good luck to the pilot and passenger in the right seat as well as anyone in the forward cabin.

The people in the front can exit through the top hatch in the roof...where the pilot exits every time you dock.

I sure appreciate all the concerns shown here for us and our choice for one method of serving our guests, however it is our money, our lodge and our choice made by me knowing exactly the plusses and minuses of the airplane in this discussion.

People who like warbirds and antique aircraft generally do not care what it costs to ride in them, I learned that in spades during the time we operated a warbird restoration and flight training business.

By the way Cory and Just another Canuck, how much time do you two have on a Beech 18 on floats and who owned them?

[Just another canuck]

New that was going to come up. Never flown one .. Should have mentioned that in the first place. Just watched them chew up the entire lake for four years and cringe every time they barely make the tree tops. I won't mention any operators. If I wanted to fly one, I suspect I could. And that doesn't mean the guys who fly it don't enjoy it. I know they do. But that's not what's on topic here.

I hate to ask, but have you done an under water egress course? I suspect you have. I have. Hell of a time getting out of the door and windows. I can't imagine what it would be like to try to get out the hatch. I would ask my friend who cart wheeled his, but neither he nor his wife made it out of the hatch either.

[cory_trevor]

I just simply wanted to point out that an aircraft like the otter has 5 easily accessible emergency exits where the beech only has 2 and I think it's pretty obvious the chances of an overweight tourist on their way to or from a fishing lodge is going to make it out the cockpit hatch in the beech especially if he's trying to get out at the same time as the pilot. Then there's the other 5 guys in the back all trying to get out one door in dark murky water. I'm not trying to start an argument, I think the beech is a great performing old warbird.

[flyinthebug]

New that was going to come up. Never flown one .. Should have mentioned that in the first place. Just watched them chew up the entire lake for four years and cringe every time they barely make the tree tops. I won't mention any operators. If I wanted to fly one, I suspect I could. And that doesn't mean the guys who fly it don't enjoy it. I know they do. But that's not what's on topic here.

I hate to ask, but have you done an under water egress course? I suspect you have. I have. Hell of a time getting out of the door and windows. I can't imagine what it would be like to try to get out the hatch. I would ask my friend who cart wheeled his, but neither he nor his wife made it out of the hatch either.

JAC...I am sincerely sorry to hear of the loss of your friend(s) in what was obviously a tragic accident. Not knowing any more than you just offered about that crash, could they have been in a situation where they were unconscious and maybe unable to open the hatch for that reason? I always found the hatch as an easy way in and out (only way up front as has been pointed out). I am curious as to why you seem to be so passionately questioning . at every turn? Perhaps you have a strong dislike for B18s due to your personal loss, and again, I am sincerely sorry...and I do understand...but to this point your argument has been specious at times if not down right insulting at others.

I love the old B 18s like most of us do. Whether or not they are appropriate for a commercial operation, who are we to say? As . said, its his money and he has a fair bit of experience to draw on...so id suspect he has done his homework. Would I choose a Twin Beech over a DHC3T...nope I wouldn't. I agree with some of your comparisons. That said, if it is a lodge that caters to old timers that love vintage airplanes...do you have any idea how much they are willing to pay to be flown into their camps by a "vintage" bird? There is a market and as I said in my earlier post, I was very close to buying a B18 just a few years ago, so at one point I felt strongly that a Beech 18 would suit the needs of my customers best. The spar issue was the only thing that stopped the project from moving forward. So you never know what . may have up his sleeve and you`re starting to become more aggravating then inquisitive now.

That all said, maybe you will feel like sharing the story of those you lost> Its been therapeutic to me over the years and we ALL will get it on some level. That is just horribly sad to hear...I am sorry. I send my condolences on your loss.

Fly Safe
FTB

[Cat Driver]

Thanks Flying the Bug, you have pointed out the obvious and anyone can look back at my posts on this subject and it is obvious my reason for wanting a B18 on floats is for a target market.

As to all the hand wringing about crashing into trees and cart wheeling on the water one could sit here for the next century and find all kinds of reasons you can get killed in anything.


For instance how easy would it be for seven people to get out of a Beaver that is twisted out of shape upside down in the water.

My way of operating aircraft is don't crash them then getting out is not a problem.

I think the beech is a great looking old warbird but I don't believe it has a place in commercial aviation anymore,

Good thing you are not making these decisions in Transport Canada, fortunately they have a different view as they are still legal to operate commercially.

As to you and J A C mentioning you have not flown one but not because you couldn't , that is really a great claim...because all certified aircraft were designed for the lowest common denominator in society to be able to safely fly them.

Hopefully you two at least reach that level of skills as pilots.

[cory_trevor]

It's obvious that this thread is a lost cause. You started it to get others opinions between the beech and beavers/otters yet all you do is belittle them when they state their own opinion. You should have just titled it "The Beech 18 is the best floatplane ever built because I said so". All I did was voice my concern about pax safety in regards to the beech and your only defense was that you have 25k hours and you don't crash airplanes so emergency exits aren't an issue for you. You also mentioned you have no desire to fly the thing so shouldn't pax safety be one of your main concerns if somebody else will be operating the aircraft?