I dont see much in here about the aircraft from lake?
Why not? When I read their specs they seem like a good bush plane. Kinda on par with a Cessna 180 except floats built right in.
1000 pounds plus useful,660 ground roll, 4 seats.
So what is it that doesnt show up on paper?

I'm not a Lake pilot but have considered buying one from time to time because I run across one that I think is a smokin deal
As far as a bush type plane they would have some limitations.


Takeoff performance on water seems a little lacking so you would need a pretty fair sized chunk of water to get airborne.
The low wing would not be so good for most docking operations and obstacles along a shore line. You would have to nose up almost anywhere you want to get out of the plane on water.

But if you need amphib and could deal with a few drawbacks I think thy could be a viable 2 person plane.

I have heard rumor you can perform a wicked fast step turn by dipping a wing down to help pull you around though

Also always liked the looks of a republic too!

I think they're cool. My hangar neighbor @zpilot has one. Hopefully I'll get a ride in it this summer.

I would be curious how they perform with all 1000 lbs useful in play.

I think you ask an excellent question though. You don't see them very often up here and there must be a reason.

They were really pricey airplanes new--no idea of their prices now. Access to the back seat, which would be more likely used for baggage in any bush operation, isn't very easy. At our elevations in this part of the world, they're not the hottest performers, other than the turbo'd versions, but with just two aboard, I've watched them pull off of Lake Meredith near Ordway, CO, in pretty hot weather. One was a 270hp Turbo Renegade. I think the other was a NA 250hp model. The lake's elevation is officially 4254' MSL, so I'd estimate the DA at about 5800' then. Both seemed to perform adequately, although obviously they weren't running nearly to gross.

On land, they are relatively low slung, which would limit them to pretty smooth strips, I would think. Damaging the hull would be something to be avoided at all costs. Here's a video of one being flown in Idaho: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7442N1HZ0rM Most of the operations in the video are on various lakes, and the scenery is gorgeous, but the only land ops shown are on hard surface runways.

FWIW, my IA isn't too enamored with them. There's been one in the shop where he works, and he says that the tower that the engine is mounted on is relatively fragile from his observation. Of course, that one to me seems pretty battle worn, so maybe it's just that one.

I've always thought that they were pretty cool airplanes, but it takes more than numbers to make a good back country airplane.

Cary

The Lake Amphibian can be a pretty capable bush adventure machine, but like all planes you have to learn and stay within it's limitations and it has many.

Fast step turns are treacherous in a Lake as they can very easily water loop in that situation, the center of flotation goes rearward and they get like a tail dragger on the water.

The mains have good ability to travel over very rough ground and the prop blast goes right at the elevator which gives it good ability to keep weight off the fragile nose wheel.

I had a 180 HP model for several years and truly enjoyed it more than any aircraft I have owned. I was going after another one but faced the reality of how far I now live from water... so I am refurbing an old C182 for back country work.

If I was close to water again I would not hesitate to go with a Lake again but buyers beware. They can be maintenance hogs and many experienced pilots have violated the limitations of the craft and paid the price. They are not easy to operate near docks but make up for that with their ability to crawl right up on rocky beaches etc.

The flying characteristics of the pane are completely backwards from normal. Pull the throttle back and the nose goes up and vice a versa. It takes some getting used to. Good instruction is critical to success!

My .02

RC

So you land in a lake and hit a submerged log...do you want to damage a float, or damage a hull?

Seems like that's the biggest answer to "Why not a Lake?"

Docking is not exactly fun, but it's also not impossible. Beaching is great.

Here is a photo of us docked at Manatee Springs in Florida just 2 weeks ago.



My friend and I have had the Lake LA-4 200 for about 3 years now. We restored it in Seattle after it had not flown for 15 years and then flew it to Florida and keep it there now. It is a really cool airplane, very underrated.

Hammer wrote:So you land in a lake and hit a submerged log...do you want to damage a float, or damage a hull?

Seems like that's the biggest answer to "Why not a Lake?"

Most seaplane pilots endeavor NOT to hit logs at all. Not that tough to avoid, if the pilot is conscious.

MTV

It seems like the pilots position forward of the wing would offer better visibility than either a high or low wing aircraft.
Any thoughts?

mtv wrote:

Hammer wrote:So you land in a lake and hit a submerged log...do you want to damage a float, or damage a hull?

Seems like that's the biggest answer to "Why not a Lake?"

Most seaplane pilots endeavor NOT to hit logs at all. Not that tough to avoid, if the pilot is conscious.

MTV

Wow...never occurred to me that pilots might try to avoid hitting things with their floats.

Good to know it's not a risk to conscientious pilots!

Hammer wrote:

mtv wrote:

Hammer wrote:So you land in a lake and hit a submerged log...do you want to damage a float, or damage a hull?

Seems like that's the biggest answer to "Why not a Lake?"

Most seaplane pilots endeavor NOT to hit logs at all. Not that tough to avoid, if the pilot is conscious.

MTV

Wow...never occurred to me that pilots might try to avoid hitting things with their floats.

Good to know it's not a risk to conscientious pilots!

I flew floats regularly for 30 years. I know of one case where I SUSPECT the pilot struck a submerged object....... And, no, it wasn’t me. Frankly, this is pretty rare.

MTV

Hammer wrote:So you land in a lake and hit a submerged log...do you want to damage a float, or damage a hull?

Seems like that's the biggest answer to "Why not a Lake?"

Would it even matter? Either situation you just damaged your primary means of floatation, and both could be taken airborne (if possible) and landed on dry land or run up on the beach. I’ve only heard of 3 planes in Southwest Alaska (Bristol Bay Area) getting heavily damaged in such a situation one was a Grumman Goose and the two others on pontoons. The 185 that hit a log in turbid water fared the worst. Drove the fuselage attach point a few inches inward. That being said a Lakes hull is in my opinion and observations way more stout than a pontoon. There is a guy that for years has taken his Lake Amphib pretty much everywhere everybody else has in Southwest AK and never seems to have a problem. Like everything or every situation 99% percent of the time it’s the skill of the pilot that count. Just my 2 cents of verbal vomit.

I ran across a Lake at Serpentine Hot Springs awhile back. The airstrip was in decent shape, it was just the sight of an amphib there that was odd. I did not see the pilot land or take off, but I would imagine he did just fine on both accounts. He was by himself, but he had enough gear to comfortably camp wherever he wanted to. If I remember, Ed (the pilot of the Lake) was from the seaplane paradise of Colorado.

The landing gear does look rugged.

Indeed why not? There's one here in fairbanks that's for sale. Previously it was owned (I think) by an FAA inspector but that may be bad memory playing me. Periodically it'd wake up and go fly in the summer on a nice day...do a few ramps up and down then T&G's. MTV recalls the plane used to park near Northland Av. Recently it got tuned up and a FOR SALE sign appeared.

I've thought about it...."hey why not just one more?" Put skis on in the winter and lock the gear. Dreams for older guys I guess.

Gary

This was a Moose Creek quite a while ago. I didn't talk to him, see him land, or see him leave, but was enjoying the area in his ride.

PA1195 wrote:Indeed why not? There's one here in fairbanks that's for sale. Previously it was owned (I think) by an FAA inspector but that may be bad memory playing me. Periodically it'd wake up and go fly in the summer on a nice day...do a few ramps up and down then T&G's. MTV recalls the plane used to park near Northland Av. Recently it got tuned up and a FOR SALE sign appeared.

I've thought about it...."hey why not just one more?" Put skis on in the winter and lock the gear. Dreams for older guys I guess.

Gary

That might be the same one that was for sale a few years ago. A friend and I talked about partnering in that plane but decided our goals were different and didn’t want to hurt the friendship.

Looked like a neat plane.

Why not a Lake, indeed.

I asked that question myself earlier this year.
I supposed I answered that question also, as I find myself a Lake owner now.

I was originally shopping for a Skywagon Amphib that could carry 850-900lb useful load.
What I found was that I couldn't afford such a machine. ($200-$400k)

Other affordable amphibs included Maules. However, they take a severe penalty on amphibs...perhaps 700-750lb useful load.
The other affordable option was finding a Murphy Moose on amphibs....and they could carry a load. I've come across a handful of Moose Amphibs over the last few years, but, found nothing in 2018.

So, I went back to the drawing board.
My mission was: Amphibious airplane that could carry 850+ useful load...like four normal sized adults and like 30-40 gallons of fuel or...two adults, a couple of dogs, and some light camping gear with full tanks. The budget was $125-$150k.

I initially dismissed Lakes, because they have, for some odd reason, a bad reputation. As I dug deeper into my research, I decided that the bad reputation is unfairly awarded to this airplane. For example, refer to some of the hating on Lakes in other, older threads in BCP.
They had a rash of accidents due to porpoising back in the day. But, this was all because of the pilot, not the design of the airplane. I think I read earlier in this thread about a concern about the engine mounting pylon. In all my research this past year, I did not come up with any history on any Lake to where the engine mount was some sort of issue.
Lake pilots/authors claim in their publications that the hull is over-designed and you can actually land a Lake on a hard surface four times with the gear up, with no damage to the hull.

With all this said, and all my praising aside, yeah, I'll admit I had to give up a couple of things.
1. Docking. It can be done, but not really recommended.
2. Gear ingress/egress. Most Lakes don't have the cargo door, and it is a minor PITA to get gear in and out of the back seat area.
3. STOL characteristics. This was not a big factor or need in my decision making, but, nah, I would not say a Lake is a STOL airplane per-se. For me, it's going to do what I want it to do...and yeah, I think I can safely bring it into Johnson Creek, Minam River Lodge, etc. But your stol airplanes will do that better than me, and I am okay with that.

In conclusion, the Lake Buccaneer will do 90% of what I want it to do at a third of the price of a Skywagon.

By the way, I have a 1977 200hp model, 980lb useful load.

-ZP

ZP,

Good on you! I’ve been essentially silent on this thread because I’ve flown a Lake precisely twice. The only thing I know is the high mounted engine presents different (different from more “conventional” aircraft) pitch responses with changes in power.

I’ve always suspected that in large part they’re not that common simply because they’re not that common. There was the insurance issue, but that, as you pointed out, was a pilot training issue, not a design issue.

The Lake is also a relatively complex airplane......like most any amphib, and as such can be a bit of a leap for an inexperienced pilot. Which was often the case when they were new.

Pay attention to that pitch vs power thing and the position of the gear and you should have a great flying machine. I agree that JC should work fine.

MTV

Question for Zplot and others actually flying a Lake,
What are your thoughts on the visibility/seating position?
PROP POSITION?
Watching the Video here about off airport operations in a trike a lot of it is about keeping debris out of the prop and the rest of the plane and avoiding prop strikes. Lake seems to have solved that problem but does it actually change the way you operate off pavement?