I am totally hooked. The very first thing when we left runway 20 at Chelan Municipal is a simulated engine out. For those of you who have not been to S10, when you depart to the south the ground drops out below you from the 1260 foot fiel elevation down to the 600 foot Columbia river. Nice if you have an actual failure as there are plenty of places to land, and you just got 600 feet of altitiude for free.
Anyways, we decended right down to the river at like 1500 FPM. The Lake decends like it has a belly full of rocks. Then leveled out and plop, right down in the river. Then it was my turn. I got to do a water takeoff which is a little like a soft field take off but first you get up on the step, and then fly into ground (water) effect, and then start to climb out.

We flew past my house which is just over the river, and spotted a herd of deer swimming out in the main chanel. I never knew they did that, but I guess they got to get across somehow. (BTW, Coyotes take the bridge)

We then flew up lake Chelan, I did a bunch of steep turns about 50 feet off the water. I am new at this, and that was by far more fun than anything else I have done. I just soloed in a Cessna 150 Friday, today was the first "real" solo for me, where I went to the airport by myself, got the plane out by myself, filled the tanks, you get the picture. The ride in the right seat of the lake, and the bit of time I got to fly it was more inspiring and more fun than my solo flights. I have to get a seaplane. Have to.

David

Congrats David! You are lucky. I used to be pretty good at snagging rides from pilots of interesting planes. I will never forget the few times I had a right seat ride in a Lake Amphib. It really is exciting. It is hard not to day dream all day about owning one and the may possible places you go go and things you can do. My bubble always end's up getting burst when i see how expensive they are to buy, let alone operate . I think I'll stick to the 15K Cessna 150!

I hate to crash the party but this is the biggest piece of garbage (lake buccaneer) I have every flown...design flaws all over... mainly Porpoising out of control.. (I think it's lake's #1 cause of crashes)... it takes water enough to totally throw out your CofG, thus requires a lot more maintenance than anything else...I could go on but in my opinion, stay the heck away from the Buccaneer! Cheers, BCT

DavidB. wrote:......We then flew up lake Chelan, I did a bunch of steep turns about 50 feet off the water. I am new at this, and that was by far more fun than anything else I have done.........

Not to hard to lose 50' of altitude in a true "steep turn", esp for a newby. Be careful out there. Nuff said.
The Columbia River in that area looked to me like seaplane heaven when I drove down highway 97 alongside it.

Somewhat agree with the above. Takes a lot of water and pretty unstable. I only have 12 hours in one but I'm not sure I would trust myself to put it down safely 100% of the time. Only seaplane I've flown so nothing to compare to.

Backcountry Tundra wrote:I hate to crash the party but this is the biggest piece of garbage (lake buccaneer) I have every flown...design flaws all over... mainly Porpoising out of control.. (I think it's lake's #1 cause of crashes)... it takes water enough to totally throw out your CofG, thus requires a lot more maintenance than anything else...I could go on but in my opinion, stay the heck away from the Buccaneer! Cheers, BCT

I have to second that. When they first came out a dealer in Anchorage sold 8 of them. Seven crashed before freeze up.....

hotrod150 wrote:

DavidB. wrote:......We then flew up lake Chelan, I did a bunch of steep turns about 50 feet off the water. I am new at this, and that was by far more fun than anything else I have done.........

Not to hard to lose 50' of altitude in a true "steep turn", esp for a newby. Be careful out there. Nuff said.
The Columbia River in that area looked to me like seaplane heaven when I drove down highway 97 alongside it.

The owners hands were never too far off the controls, and 50 feet may be a little bit of an imbellishment.

DonC wrote:

Backcountry Tundra wrote:I hate to crash the party but this is the biggest piece of garbage (lake buccaneer) I have every flown...design flaws all over... mainly Porpoising out of control.. (I think it's lake's #1 cause of crashes)... it takes water enough to totally throw out your CofG, thus requires a lot more maintenance than anything else...I could go on but in my opinion, stay the heck away from the Buccaneer! Cheers, BCT

I have to second that. When they first came out a dealer in Anchorage sold 8 of them. Seven crashed before freeze up.....

I am not saying I want a Lake, but I do want an airplane that lands on water some day. Floats seem more practical since you can pull up to a dock.

clue #1, buy an aircraft with a prop in front of the aircraft! Clue #2 buy a plane that has floats you can pump water out of! many more clues to come! happy flying

Wow... I'm feeling a lot of hate here for Lake Aircraft!!!

I strongly considered these planes about a year into my research phase (Took two years total) before settling on my 170. Actually, the reason that I decided against is *kind of* the reasons listed here. Most of the guys that didn't have a lot of time in type just hated them (see above). The guys that liked the planes full well agreed that the plane flies different. The biggest issue is that it doesn't fly like a puller, it flies like a pusher with her belly right at your butt. The planes weren't at fault *according to the guys I talked to*, the pilots just didn't know how to fly them.

I guess its like a Cessna 337 (which I also considered) - the plane gets a lot of bad rap for being a pilot killer. If you read the write-ups though, it seems like a lot of pilots try and fly the plane with just the puller or just the pusher prop, when it is designed to work with both. It is a unique design that has unique considerations that pilots have to realize.

Anyway, just my .02c - I hate to see an aircraft get bashed even if it was only mildly successful.

Nothing wrong at all with the Lake airplanes. As a German friend of mine is wont to note frequently: "the problem can generally be found between the earphones", and this applies in spades to the Lake airplanes.

Now, that said, there were folks as Don noted, who thought they were going to operate them commercially in Alaska, and they didn't work out all that well, though Forty Mile Air ran one for several years. The Lakes take a little bit of maintenance, and at least in my opinion, they aren't very suitable for heavy commercial operations.

That said, as a personal airplane, they do pretty well.

The typical problem comes from the VERY HIGH MOUNTED engine thrust line, NOT from the pusher vs tractor mounting. On the Lake, the thrust line of the engine/propeller is VERY high, compared to what most pilots are used to. So, when you are on approach to land, and you're a little low, you add some power.....in MOST airplanes, that results in a slight nose up pitching moment. In the Lake, it results in a fairly significant NOSE DOWN pitching moment. On the other hand, if you're a little high, carrying a little power, and REDUCE power on short final, the Lake pitches nose UP fairly significantly, again, compared to "normal" airplanes with lower thrust lines. That has caught more than a few pilots, who then stalled the airplane on short final.

Those characteristics have wrecked a few Lakes. At one point, you couldn't buy insurance for a Lake, but Lake developed a training program, developed an insurance plan, and with just a little training, most of the "problems" went away.


I don't have much Lake experience, but in my experience they don't have any more porpoising tendency than any other hull type airplanes, and in fact, for a number of years, Armand Rivard used to demonstrate the Lake's tolerance of ham fisted piloting by intentionally inducing a porpoise, then continue on the step, and step turns, ugly ones with no ill effects. First time I saw him do that, I was amazed at how tolerant the airplane is.

Leaks?? The airplane has a bilge pump. Keep the bilge pump maintained, and should be no problems. Forget to put the drain plugs in a Grumman hull sometime, and see how well that works.

The Lakes are pretty good personal use airplanes, particularly for the Lower 48, where amphibs are almost a necessity due to fuel availability. In Alaska, there are probably better options. But, nothing wrong with the Lake that a little pilot training can't fix.

MTV

Would a cessna on floats have less tendency to porpoise? All I can say is my first glassy water landing was a little rough.

All I can say is my first glassy water landing was a little rough.

If it was a true glassy water landing, then "a little rough" ain't bad early on.

Lot of experienced pilots have been bit by glassy water.

I have a bit of time in the Lake 250 back in the late 80s. Flew one in the Indian Ocean, based in the Maldives, for a co called the Flying Swiss Ambulance. The plane like all planes has it's advantages and disadvantages, as I recall it needed a lot of maintenance, we had a full time mechanic for it, but for putting a stretcher and patient on board running it up on the beach and meeting a boat in the Ocean it was not bad. Did I mention I usually landed it out in the Ocean with some very large swells, with waves breaking over the windshield, haven't tried that with a piston float plane, and not sure I want to. As I remember it had a few quirks to get used to like adding power caused a pitch down and reducing power caused a pitch up. In short it wasn't the best plane I ever flew nor the worst, but I wouldn't trade my time in it for any other. So in short it is an airplane and even better it flies and floats.

I on the other hand have no time in one, but always wanted one. After looking at adds for years, one thing that stands out as a problem , the engine times, generally a Lyc IO360 is a solid 2000 hour engine, look at the adds for a lake LA200 TAF 1200 TSMO 160 and worse. Many don’t make it much past 600 hr if that on the first engine. Times like this are common on Lake Aircraft why? Hot engine and cold water? A decent Lake 200 is selling for about 75-85K. From what I understand the Lake 200 is the minimum for two passengers and gear. Aircraft are like loving a wicked woman you know you shouldn't, but you just can't stop. I still want one.

On the other hand, I have heard it said that they don’t fly bad for a 26’ cabin cruiser.

A question about porpoiseing,
What attributes contribute to good water handling ?

Goldinthecreek wrote:A question about porpoiseing,
What attributes contribute to good water handling ?

Cash money, but still no guarantee you will get good water handling.

I bought a Lake LA 4,180hp two years ago.

I like it. I live in Washington, and there is the "waterloop" here.

It starts north of Everett and Anecortez with low land lakes, then to MT Baker lake, then through the mountain pass to the North end of Lake Chelan, then the whole length of that, switch to southbound on the columbia river, through to Portland, OR, then follow the river north and then hit fresh water lakes all the way (or salt water if you do that) and back to Everett.

Before I had a lake la4 I was unaware Washington state IS the largest waterpark thrill ride I have ever known or experienced.

Last trip had 29 water landings between sunup and the halfway mark north of where I-90 meets the river, around noon. Tuckered me right out.

You get pretty good at flying and water landing a Lake if you do it enough.

Cheers!

It's a bit of a curiosity for me how some airplanes pick up a "bad rap". We've all heard all the critiques over the years; taildraggers are this, tricycles gears are that, that airplane is a doctor killer. All airplanes having their own personalities and peculiarities. It's all about understanding the nuances through proper training, a willingness and commitment to the on going development of one's skills & abilities that keeps us safe regardless of the airframe we are operating at the time.

The other component in this nuanced game is purpose, each aircraft type often has a niche it fills and if operated within it's realm can be very suitable for the task at hand. There isn't a one trick pony that I'm aware of in aviation or that's likely what we'd all be flying.