Anyone have a rough estimate of the wheel-equipped glide ratio at best L/D speed? Bonus if you have it for floats also.

Same as a greased manhole cover?

Judging from this and your Facebook post, it's not a good thing that you're asking this question.

Absolute guess, I have ZERO experience with the DH Beaver, but I would imagine 7-1 on wheels is about as good as you're gonna get. But "maximum glide ratio" (L/D) is measured at altitude on a steady, straight, level, controlled glide. This is never what you're gonna get in a real-world engine out emergency. Floats would drop your glide performance by 20% as a wild guess.

If you actually want a real answer, believe it or not there is a likely source. The Edwards AFB Test Pilot School had a wheeled Beaver that they flew around and did testing with. They used to come to the glider field in Tehachapi for lunch, and most of the top mil-spec test pilots were also glider guys. So chances are one or two of them probably did some L/D measurements for fun and shock value in the Beaver. You might be able to track down test notes from the pilots were flying that airplane (circa 1985-87 is when I saw it), and eventually get a proper scientific answer.

Then again, the manhole cover estimate may be good enough for your purposes

Zzz wrote:Judging from this and your Facebook post, it's not a good thing that you're asking this question.

Sigh. No, that post was about Helo 1 in Alaska. Worked with that pilot on multiple SAR missions over the years, and we thought the other trooper on board was a family friend (turns out to be someone else.)

This is a question regarding safe gliding distance from shore requirements in the FAR's. Trying to develop a rule of thumb for a wheel-equipped Beaver: Assuming calm winds, at x miles from shore, at what AGL altitude must you be in order to satisfy the requirement?

What safe gliding distance from shore FAR?

Gump

delete.

Glad to hear you're getting to work around a Beaver, Richard

gbflyer wrote:Same as a greased manhole cover?

*Simonized*, not greased.

gbflyer wrote:Same as a greased manhole cover?

In my research I was surprised to learn that modern jets have much better glide ratios than spam cans. I know they have much less drag but with such thrust I didn't think so much structure was dedicated to lift. 35:1 or better isn't uncommon.

FAR 135 Airtaxis don't need glide distance mins over water when operating on floats, of course. No requirement for 91, floats or wheels.

On wheels, single engine, they need 2200' to cross Lynn Canal to comply with that glide distance reg. I reckon it's 5 miles wide, maybe 6? I'd do the math but I don't have a calculator (public school graduate).

About a 22 mile crossing here. So need to glide 11 miles or so in calm winds from midpoint.

gbflyer wrote:
On wheels, single engine, they need 2200' to cross Lynn Canal to comply with that glide distance reg. I reckon it's 5 miles wide, maybe 6? I'd do the math but I don't have a calculator (public school graduate).

Does the 2200 agl include the 500' below for Uncle Sam? Or is that in addition?

So when I did my first dual x-c across Turnagain Arm, was that part 135, and did my instructor count as a passenger?

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

gbflyer wrote:
On wheels, single engine, they need 2200' to cross Lynn Canal to comply with that glide distance reg. I reckon it's 5 miles wide, maybe 6? I'd do the math but I don't have a calculator (public school graduate).

Does the 2200 agl include the 500' below for Uncle Sam? Or is that in addition?

They are supposed to be at 2200' minimum to cross. I suppose if the ceiling was less than 2700', they would be breakin' the rules depending on class E or G (I think it's all E) Not sure. If every regulation was adhered to the letter of the law, we would get pretty hungry out here.

Ok. Well by rough and ugly math that equates to about a 7:1 glide ratio. As EZflap estimated. Pretty similar to a Cessna 172.

Of course if AirX would just put amphibs on those Sixes...