Halestorm wrote:

Terry wrote:If we are going for looks!

That mk3 has been kicking around Seattle for years, affectionately known in certain circles as the “Hairy Legs” beaver. Most of us in that circle would never refer to that paint scheme as attractive.

It was re-engined years ago by Gene Zirkel and using a PT-6-27 and branded the “Magnum Beaver”. With that engine it was most likely temp limited on the day it’s photo was taken there in Roche Harbor. Always fun bouncing around in there with all the boat wakes in summertime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, Zirkle had some interesting ideas of what constituted a “good looking” paint scheme.

MTV

Mountain Doctor wrote:Because the electric one would be more suited to perform as an ornament but had not yet been invented.

Your disdain for electric flight is well noted. I wonder what you might have said in Kittyhawk so many years ago--
"pretty short flight"
"not much payload"
"publicity stunt"

Am I close?

albravo wrote:

Mountain Doctor wrote:Because the electric one would be more suited to perform as an ornament but had not yet been invented.

Your disdain for electric flight is well noted. I wonder what you might have said in Kittyhawk so many years ago--
"pretty short flight"
"not much payload"
"publicity stunt"

Or about the Kiwi fellow Pearse who had a powered flight 9 months before the Wright bros

Halestorm wrote:It was re-engined years ago by Gene Zirkel and using a PT-6-27 and branded the “Magnum Beaver”. With that engine it was most likely temp limited on the day it’s photo was taken there in Roche Harbor.

That’s interesting to hear it’s not enough engine. I’ve just started flying a turbine Ag Cat with a -27, it’s the exact same model as my 985 powered Cat, yet the performance difference is incredible. With the same weight in the plane, where I was running 31”/2150 in the radial, I’m running 32psi/2000 with the turbine. I’d have figured the turbine Beavers would behave similarly.

CenterHillAg wrote:

Halestorm wrote:It was re-engined years ago by Gene Zirkel and using a PT-6-27 and branded the “Magnum Beaver”. With that engine it was most likely temp limited on the day it’s photo was taken there in Roche Harbor.

That’s interesting to hear it’s not enough engine. I’ve just started flying a turbine Ag Cat with a -27, it’s the exact same model as my 985 powered Cat, yet the performance difference is incredible. With the same weight in the plane, where I was running 31”/2150 in the radial, I’m running 32psi/2000 with the turbine. I’d have figured the turbine Beavers would behave similarly.

The original engines in the MK III Turbo Beaver were the -6A and -20 A PT-6. Those engines were rated at 550 hp. And that’s about all they were capable of. The -27 I believe, is a 680 shp rated engine, so I can’t believe the added performance isn’t impressive. The original engines were fine in cool weather, but.... I’ve not flown a -27.

Kenmore developed their own engine upgrade, with a what? 715 shp engine?

The Turbo Beaver has a 30 inch fuselage plug added just aft of the pilots seats, which moves the engine and CG forward, adds a row of seats and increases the size of the forward belly tank.

Viking Air Limited owns the Beaver TC, and they used to offer to convert your rumbler to a whiner....for a price. Dunno if they still will.....they’re busy building Twin Otters now.

MTV

This one shows up at our strip every now and again.

mtv wrote:The original engines in the MK III Turbo Beaver were the -6A and -20 A PT-6. Those engines were rated at 550 hp. And that’s about all they were capable of. The -27 I believe, is a 680 shp rated engine, so I can’t believe the added performance isn’t impressive. The original engines were fine in cool weather, but.... I’ve not flown a -27.

Kenmore developed their own engine upgrade, with a what? 715 shp engine?

My plane had a -20 on it when I bought it and I had the same experience as you. Ample power but the ITT would run up in a hurry, best I could get was 38 psi at 700 ITT on an 80 degree day. Yesterday it was in the high 70’s- low 80’s by the afternoon, and taking off with 330 gal loads the ITT was never higher than 580 at 42 psi with the -27. The previous owners wouldn’t put more than 200 gal in it because of how much the -20 would fall off in the heat. The -20 is gas hog too, used about 6 gal/hr more than the -27 at the same power setting.

The Kenmore conversion might be a -28? I think it and the -27 are identical except the -28 has an ITT redline at 750 compared to 725 for the -27, giving it the extra hp.

CenterHillAg wrote:

mtv wrote:The original engines in the MK III Turbo Beaver were the -6A and -20 A PT-6. Those engines were rated at 550 hp. And that’s about all they were capable of. The -27 I believe, is a 680 shp rated engine, so I can’t believe the added performance isn’t impressive. The original engines were fine in cool weather, but.... I’ve not flown a -27.

Kenmore developed their own engine upgrade, with a what? 715 shp engine?

My plane had a -20 on it when I bought it and I had the same experience as you. Ample power but the ITT would run up in a hurry, best I could get was 38 psi at 700 ITT on an 80 degree day. Yesterday it was in the high 70’s- low 80’s by the afternoon, and taking off with 330 gal loads the ITT was never higher than 580 at 42 psi with the -27. The previous owners wouldn’t put more than 200 gal in it because of how much the -20 would fall off in the heat. The -20 is gas hog too, used about 6 gal/hr more than the -27 at the same power setting.

The Kenmore conversion might be a -28? I think it and the -27 are identical except the -28 has an ITT redline at 750 compared to 725 for the -27, giving it the extra hp.

The Kenmore conversion actually used a -135, same as an early Beech C-90 I believe. -135 is a wonderful version of the PT-6, only 1900 rpm at the prop and very smooth, the neighbors loved it. Kenmore's STC is fatally flawed in that it's only approved on a straight EDO 4930 float equipped MK3, can't be used on wheels or any other float make, somewhat short sighted at the time. All of Kenmore's turbine beavers are now running the -34 via the Viking STC, never a shortage of power with that setup.

albravo wrote:

Mountain Doctor wrote:Because the electric one would be more suited to perform as an ornament but had not yet been invented.

Your disdain for electric flight is well noted. I wonder what you might have said in Kittyhawk so many years ago--
"pretty short flight"
"not much payload"
"publicity stunt"

Am I close?

Incorrect, you are not close.

At the time the Wright Flyer was the best plane in the world (I don't know about the Aussie Flyer but that sounds interesting) and a marked step forward in aviation and addressed a specific need, how to build a heavier than air powered craft.

The E Beaver is not a step forward and does not address a specific need, but it would make a good wallhanger. It has the range and useful load for that application.

IF a person wanted a commercial airliner, the best available (only?) IMO would be the Pipistrel as I'd mentioned before. It would be able to carry one more passenger (one total) provided he or she was small enough for about 1/2 hour before splashdown.

Previous posts mentioned that Garrett TPE331 used on Beaver N754 was supposedly "surplus military" from Rockwell OV-10 Bronco.
Someone else said the OV-10 used TPE331-6 series.

So, then, no.

Engines used on N754 and on Aleutian Goose (N780) were TPE331-2UA-203D. I heard that they were unique, custom-built by Garrett for FWS. "U" code = upside-down for intake to be on top and "A" code = aluminum instead of magnesium case for better corrosion resistance. Not sure that any -2 series ever used on anything else. Most TPE331 are -1, -5, -10, or later.

MTV also mentioned that while mods to Beaver N754 were never certified, the ones for the Aleutian Goose were. Yes, they were, but under false pretenses and never should have been. And IMHO it never should have been sold to a civilian owner after OAS retired it.

FWS designed a model "G-21F" according to title blocks on early blueprints but balked at full type certification and drawings/documentation requirements of FAA - and they were between a rock and a hard place after DOI HQ in DC told them their equipment, in spite of being "public use", had to be fully FAA-certificated. To get there, they came up with some total BS about the Goose (N780, ex-USN JRF-5 serial no. B-72) being first converted as a model G-21G under the McKinnon type certificate (4A24) as an interim then it would be further converted to their so-called G-21F configuration with the 40-inch cockpit stretch and the TPE331 engines (McKinnon used PT6A-21 and -27) via STC SA2809WE and another separate one for a new hydraulic system. Except that it was never converted or properly certified as a model G-21G, by FWS or McKinnon. In the end, it was converted directly to their original G-21F configuration and they only said it was a modified G-21G. Note too that it's not a "McKinnon" unless McKinnon actually "builds" it - and by the time that the Aleutian Goose was completed, McKinnon had been out of the seaplane conversion business for 3+ years.

Just saying.

Better vantage from the upstairs lounge: