I was just doing some research and I'm haveing trouble finding out exactly what is done to a Beaver for the 5600 GWI. I know that 4930 floats are needed. I'm just curious what is done to the Beaver structurally. Can someone help me out?

I know Stalarius in Kelowna who took over from AOG are still doing mods. Check them out online, they might have your answers. Wing struts or the bolts are changed and some added plates overlapping the strut connections. This is just off the top of my head, someone else might have the correct info. DHC

If I recall Kenmore held the stc for the up gross on the beaver I was flying. Sorry, can't remember the exact mods, but that may be a place to start too.

Viking holds the STC you're asking about... come to think of it, I think Wipline has a 5600 up gross mod too. A few more rivets in the wings, lifetime struts, and many many dollars worth of paperwork

As has been mentioned above, struts, rivets, etc.
Unfortunately however, nothing that makes the aircraft fly any better at that weight.

Slats wrote:As has been mentioned above, struts, rivets, etc.
Unfortunately however, nothing that makes the aircraft fly any better at that weight.

Yes, how true that is. We have to remember, it doesn't matter how many mods are added to this fine beast, it's still the same stove bolted on the front.( piston versions of course ) DHC

I was part of the R & D and have done many installations. Fire away your questions.

I flew in one many years ago. Could hardly hold altitude when it was hot and muggy out. If you want to haul an otter load, buy an otter!

Lost Lake wrote:I flew in one many years ago. Could hardly hold altitude when it was hot and muggy out. If you want to haul an otter load, buy an otter!

You were probably still using the power settings for the original weights.. I was witness to someone trying to fly the f8cking thing at 5600lbs at 28/18!! No wonder it was staggering around like a stuck pig. If you want that extra weight, you're gonna have to burn more fuel.

I'll agree though.. you want to carry that much more weight? Stop being cheap and get a turbine beav or otter

As for the question by the original poster. Have you gotten the info you needed? If not, I can track down a couple of numbers/contact information for friends in the industry who have performed the STC. IIRC as stated before, its a strut change, some added reinforcements near them and a couple of placard and paper changes.

Doesn't Pasco run their beavers on the whip amphibs with the up gross? I noticed all their machines had two bladed props, and both the skegs AND vertical fins on the horizontal stabilizers

Rowdy wrote:

Lost Lake wrote:I flew in one many years ago. Could hardly hold altitude when it was hot and muggy out. If you want to haul an otter load, buy an otter!

You were probably still using the power settings for the original weights.. I was witness to someone trying to fly the f8cking thing at 5600lbs at 28/18!! No wonder it was staggering around like a stuck pig. If you want that extra weight, you're gonna have to burn more fuel.

I'll agree though.. you want to carry that much more weight? Stop being cheap and get a turbine beav or otter

As for the question by the original poster. Have you gotten the info you needed? If not, I can track down a couple of numbers/contact information for friends in the industry who have performed the STC. IIRC as stated before, its a strut change, some added reinforcements near them and a couple of placard and paper changes.

Doesn't Pasco run their beavers on the whip amphibs with the up gross? I noticed all their machines had two bladed props, and both the skegs AND vertical fins on the horizontal stabilizers

Ours had a 3 blade Hartzell prop and the full Baron STOL kit and WIP 6000 amphibs. I would cruise all day long at 125mph indicated with a touch of flap using 28/18

This pretty much sums up what I was trying to find out. I was just having trouble finding information online about the mod. My employer was talking about a mod that brings the engine mounts foreward an inch or two. I was just curious if it had anything to do with an upgross. Thanks everyone for the feedback.

The engine relocate is a separate mod from the upgross. I seem to recall it making for a bit better cruise speed, but it's been a while.
Probably nothing that keeping it within legal weight and cracking a touch of flap as necessary couldn't accomplish.

cdnpilot77 wrote: I would cruise all day long at 125mph indicated with a touch of flap using 28/18

125 indicated. You had a good one. All the ones I flew were in the 100 range. I think one of the best beaver mods out there is the wing angle. Totally improves the old girl. Every beav should have one. DHC

cdnpilot77 wrote:
Ours had a 3 blade Hartzell prop and the full Baron STOL kit and WIP 6000 amphibs. I would cruise all day long at 125mph indicated with a touch of flap using 28/18

I'm not a huge fan of the 3-blader for other reasons, but it seems all the machines I've flown with them seem to indicate the best and of course they're stipulated here for noise reasons... I also noticed the huge difference that wing angle mod made! Do you like the Baron kit? I've flown one with just it and one with both it and the wing angle mod.. I think they complement each other. but the baron kit by itself didn't seem to make much of a difference other than stability in the flare and at low speeds. Was told with just the baron kit and the up gross that we should be running at 29/19 and no flap, but again that was just an opinion. I tried and it worked out fine. Have also heard of some running at 30/20.. Its incredible to see all the variances out there among the beavs. No two are even remotely close to the same!! Totally agree with you DHC.. they should all see the wing angle mod!

I got to try one with the engine mount extension. Sure is nice for c of g purposes and a load.. but it seemed to be more apt to dig when lightly loaded or at the forward edge of the c of g envelope. Anyone else notice this?

DHCdriver wrote: I think they complement each other. but the baron kit by itself didn't seem to make much of a difference other than stability in the flare and at low speeds. Was told with just the baron kit and the up gross that we should be running at 29/19

Absolutely, I feel the same way. I ran the old girl at 29/19 because I had a slow one and I wasn't paying for the gas DHC

The one I'm flying now got the baron STOL, 5370 gross weight and it's 29/19 all the time unless you wanna fly backward

Anyone thats flown the goose/beech 18/other 985 powered machines care to comment on fuel burn/longevity and their respective (I'm assuming) higher power settings?

15 min spent in a Beaver with the Baron Stol and Wing Angle mod flown in any configuration and speed will convince even the most hardened contrarian, of the improved safety benefits.
Unfortunately, in commercial aviation, these mods will add little to the bottom line.

It would interesting to objectively test and compare the stock Beaver versus the Baron Stol by itself, the wing angle by itself, the engine forward by itself, and then with the various mods combined.

The problem I see is that the particular STCs are certified only for a stock machine and not for the various mods combined.

So, the field get a little muddy here, as to the net benefits of combinations, and numbers are very hard to come by.

I have spoken to operators and engine shops that attest to better and cleaner engine condition at tear down with the 19/29 cruise settings, but I have no problem with lower MAP/RPM to keep the machine in the air longer, if needed.

Also, if not already mentioned,the flaps are blocked at "Landing".

Castorero wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:27 pm 15 min spent in a Beaver with the Baron Stol and Wing Angle mod flown in any configuration and speed will convince even the most hardened contrarian, of the improved safety benefits.
Unfortunately, in commercial aviation, these mods will add little to the bottom line.

It would interesting to objectively test and compare the stock Beaver versus the Baron Stol by itself, the wing angle by itself, the engine forward by itself, and then with the various mods combined.

The problem I see is that the particular STCs are certified only for a stock machine and not for the various mods combined.

So, the field get a little muddy here, as to the net benefits of combinations, and numbers are very hard to come by.

I have spoken to operators and engine shops that attest to better and cleaner engine condition at tear down with the 19/29 cruise settings, but I have no problem with lower MAP/RPM to keep the machine in the air longer, if needed.

Not to mention that you would have to do it all on the same airplane to get a valid comparison. I can say that I flew a Beaver to YLW to get the Baron STOL kit installed and then picked it up I was impressed in the difference it made.