Can a Widgeon handle rougher water than a Beaver?

[weloveseaplanes]

Gidday Gidday all,

So I'm a junior Beaver floatplane pilot tasked by the Chief Pilot to find out whether Widgeons can handle rougher water than a Beaver. We currently fly Beavers out to the islands and have an operational limit of 23 knots in tides greater than 1.5m in the sheltered lee of the main island we fly to, and 15 knots in tides of greater than 1.5m out to the little sandy cays we fly to.

The problem is we have to cancel many bookings out to the little sandy cays because the winds are often around 20/25 knots. We're after a 5/6 passenger seater that can handle rougher water than our Beavers, yet don't need the capacity of an Otter/Goose.

Last year I talked to some elderly pilots who were of the opinion that the Widgeon could handle really rough water and often did when operated out of Mechanics Bay in Auckland New Zealand. What the chief wants though is some more information.

So any one out there flown/flying Widgeons and can tell us the type of water and wind they're operating in please?

Alternatively anyone got any suggestions for a 5/6 seater rough water seaplane?

[kevinsky18]

In general the flying boats can handle rougher water than float planes. Unfortunately I don't have any personal experience with the Widgeon.

[xsbank]

The Widgeon is famous for its ability to 'porpoise.' One of the guys in my company (since left) owned one as a private plane (another has a Goose, buggars). Remember that a Widgeon is getting pretty long in the tooth and I doubt if any have been operated commercially for years. I'd get a Goose, more useful and more in common with your Beaver ops... also more commonly used.

Remember, sometimes you just have to say 'no.'

[Siddley Hawker]

Get a Norseman and laugh at rough water.

[weloveseaplanes]

Thanks for the replies guys. Please keep them coming, especially those of you who have flown both beavers and Widgeons in rougher water.

I've tried to collect some of the information I've found on Widgeons here, http://www.weloveseaplanes.com/seaplane-widgeons.html , but its only a start and would love some feedback from those who have been blessed to fly Widgeons.

According to the internet there seem to be a few operators still using them to whom I've sent emails, notably, Harvey's Air Service in Kodiak Alaska http://www.harveyflyingservice.com/ and Florida Seaplanes http://www.flyfloatplanes.com/ . There's also a number still registered :
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... eltxt=g-44

I had heard that the modification to the G-44A solved a lot of the purposing problems . . . anyone out there got any personal experience of both Widgeons and Beavers?

(PS - so the Norseman is the rough water machine is she?)

[BeechBoy007]

Some very good questions asked on this topic, here's another response that might be considered;

While its true that any flying boat of comparible size will handle bigger water than a conventional seaplane its also true that the Widgeon would be harder to support and maintain in a commercial application, moreso in salt water. While I particularily love Norseman,
I don't see that being quite the answer in huge seas due to weaker float attach fittings than alternative planes.

So, if the Beaver is the benchmark you choose and its approximate hull value (thereby limiting your other financial choices vs Goose/Mallard etc.) and you aseek to carry 5 or maybe 6, you run into the problems identified as to water wave height/wind you have laid out with the Beaver. Still,its a rugged plane and rigging.

Some would answer then get a second Beaver, run it lighter so it can handle more. That is a credible alternative.

In your brief you mention higher winds of 20/25 Ktd. The more wind, in my opinion, the better, to land shorter and take off shorter, in bigger water. The most difficult situation is less wind of 15kts or so and rough water. The lack of wind then, limits the amount of large water you can take, by virture of higher touchdown speed.

Back to square one, you need a plane that has higher performance, can land shorter, slower, and take-off similarily in lighter winds and large seas.

The airplane you seek then is a Helio Super Courier (H295 particularily) on either PK 3500's or EDO 3430's. The EDO's offer 10 Ktd higher cruise speed, but the PK's offer better rough water ability. Both float the same amount. PK's are also cheaper. Easier to fix too, as they have predominantly flat skins on bottom, vs fluted EDO bottoms.

The H295 has a minimum flying speed of 34 MPH at gross weight of 3800 lbs., offers pilot plus 5 passenger seats, pretty comfortable with a wide cabin, useful load on floats of 1350 lbs average and is easily supported in todays maintenance circles. Its already approved on the Ozzie register if that's where I guess you are writing about and basically out performs the Beaver in all ways-for less. I used to own and operate three of them commercially so I have some knowledge to share with you.

They cost on average, $225,000 CAD configured to fit commercial ops. They burn 15 USG/Hr, come with either 4 hour or 8 hour endurance tankage depending on model. The TBO is 1400 hours on the GO-480,and all of mine went full time without any problems.

The secret is, you are spinning a beaver prop,with a Cessna engine-in lay terms.You get sink-you-in-your-seat acceleration and great high performance, bags of fun. The H295 offers better all aound performance in my opinion vs H700 and H800, which both burn more gas, carry less load and cost more.

Among the benefits of the Helio are that there is no stall speed, the wing is prevented from stalling by various devices. I'll skip all that stuff to keep this short-er.

With a wind speed of 15 kts (approx 18 MPH) leaves you a touch down speed of approx 16 MPH! At this speed, the plane can manage landing in sea states you describe easily, with a touchdown roll/slide of just a few feet. Take-off likely less than 250' at gross.

In higher winds of 25kts. or 30+ MPH, the touchdown speed is likely ZERO. Landing roll ZERO. Sea state possible? In my experience, 6 foot plus (2M+) is quite aceptable and quite exhilarating.

I speak from personal experience with thousands of hours in the type, and can provide alternate former courier pilots to verify estimates given if you PM me.

In very high winds, or winds over 30-40-50 Kts. (for you knot types) the Courier will fly backwards in flight, allowing some amazing feats. One must be careful in this case, that when touching down in reverse flight (not recommended), that you do not dig the rear of the floats into the water lest the plane try to rear up and over and flip backwards. Avoid this by simply zeroing forward motion by adding power,and maintain normal landing/taxi attitude during water taxi-and...... stay into the wind!

Average cruise speed on PK's 105 kts., up to 115 kts. on EDO's.
Insurance costs less than a Beaver in part due to lower hull costs.

Hope this helps in your decision making process.

Happy flying.

[Just One]

I would go with either another Beaver, or get an Otter (turbine). Fact is that you don't want to be in any big water with anything at max weight. Better to plan to be well undergross in those situations.

Also, once you're on the water with a flyingboat, getting the pax in/out is complicated. Beaching in those waves isn't good, and having a boat transfer is tricky as well. At least with an Otter, you can get a boat up beside easier.

[Matthew]

In your brief you mention higher winds of 20/25 Ktd. The more wind, in my opinion, the better, to land shorter and take off shorter, in bigger water. The most difficult situation is less wind of 15kts or so and rough water. The lack of wind then, limits the amount of large water you can take, by virture of higher touchdown speed.

+1.

I would think an Otter would do the job. They're don't cost a lot more than a beaver (unless it's got a turbine up front), and they can handle rougher water than the Beaver.

Although, the Otter can be a handfull in wind....

Matt.

[weloveseaplanes]

Thanks guys.

Already have the second Beaver but the company limits them to 15 knots to the Cays so getting more won't help us.

The Chief says they used to use an Otter but she was a pain for a single pilot to handle in rough water with strong winds shuttling people on and off the cays. She ended up getting used on the larger island transfer run due to her increased seating capacity over the Beaver, rather than being used on the romantic sandy cay flights where we only need to carry 4 adults or a family of 5.

The Helio Super Courier option sounds intriguing and we'll investigate further . . .

Thanks for pointing us in the right direction.

Cheers

[1000 HP]

How about putting a beaver on bigger floats? One company in Manitoba ran a beaver on Norseman floats. I'm not sure what that did to the performance as I never flew it. I did fly a beaver with the smaller 4580's off of Lake Winnipeg. Grossed right out, it would wallow around in the 4 foot rolls and damn near swamp. I don't know what I was thinking...

Pasco in BC operates Grumman Geese. One of my favorite airplanes ever built, next to the PBY. Pasco spends about 100 hours dual with a new pilot before cutting them loose. Not an easy airplane to deal with, especially around docks.

Caravan's are like the Otter, but take a bit longer on the water. In my experience, 3.5 foot waves are just about it, and unless the firewall is the newer, beefed up type, they tend to buckle there. Also a bit larger than you are looking for, but a great machine.

Watch out for the Helio's, the geared engines are extremely expensive to overhaul.

An Otter is not a good alternative as already discussed. Too big for you. And can be terribly tough to handle in wind alone. What about the new plane? I think it's called "Kodiak"?

[1000 HP]

In your brief you mention higher winds of 20/25 Ktd. The more wind, in my opinion, the better, to land shorter and take off shorter, in bigger water. The most difficult situation is less wind of 15kts or so and rough water. The lack of wind then, limits the amount of large water you can take, by virture of higher touchdown speed.

+1.

I would think an Otter would do the job. They're don't cost a lot more than a beaver (unless it's got a turbine up front), and they can handle rougher water than the Beaver.

Although, the Otter can be a handfull in wind....

Matt.

Mostly I agree. If you don't need the capacity, haul a low-paid swamper (and maybe a sweet stewardess) along. Get the 1000HP PZL Otter, on 7850's and you have 12 seconds max on the water (glassy, gross, 28 degrees C). My shortest takeoff in 4 foot waves, was one wave (wind: about 30 kts, load: 16 mt 60lb propane bottles). It was a blast! The thing that takes the longest in a 1000 HP piston takeoff, is advancing the throttle (about 8 or 9 seconds)

A turbine Otter is a dog compared to the Polish (Unless it is the garrett). But the price is high, and fuel burn about the same. Plus Jet fuel is such slimy stuff..

This is where I disagree: A beaver is running about $350,000. A standard piston is hard to find (Super-dog). A polish piston about $850,000 (also hard to find). A turbine (any of them) $1.4 million and up. I fly a Walter now, and it has a great payload, and the reliability is nice, but it takes a fair bit of water (more water means more wave crunching). I never had an engine out in the 1000 HP piston and it is a joy to fly.

PM me if you are interested in a 1000 HP piston. I might know of one for sale, and I could deliver it for a fair price.

[jamesbay]

Can you just imagine the look on the guest's faces when you taxi up, shut down, making all those nice shiny rainbow colours from dripping oil in their pristine ocean waters!..... hahaahaa

[HS-748 2A]

How about a Piston Porter?

[jamesbay]

Hey 1000hp, I have to totally disagree with your 1st post about the caravan being like the otter, they aren't even close actually and there is no way in hell I would send a caravan to the job like what was described here. I don't know that I would send a caravan with a beaver load. There would be a whole lot of this going on. .

[rigpiggy]

Also look at the H250 has a lycoming 0540 straight drive, a few less hp, but for a honeymoon couple+ bags it will do better than a 185

[mag check]

Also look at the H250 has a lycoming 0540 straight drive, a few less hp, but for a honeymoon couple+ bags it will do better than a 185

Yes, and from what I hae heard about the H250, it will do basicly the same work as the 391b or H 295 at low altitudes(sea level) it is at the higher alts that the really long slow turning prop of the geared models make the big difference.
The Helio seems to me to be an outstanding value for what it can do. They are typically priced the same or less han a c185, and with an experianced pilot, will far outwork the cessna.

There is however some concerns lately over a few that have lost their wings, due to corrosion in the pick up points.

[1000 HP]

Hey 1000hp, I have to totally disagree with your 1st post about the caravan being like the otter, they aren't even close actually and there is no way in hell I would send a caravan to the job like what was described here. I don't know that I would send a caravan with a beaver load. There would be a whole lot of this going on. .

OK, I'll clarify that: The Caravan is roughly the same gross weight as the Otter. The turbine Otter and Caravan have the same seating capacity and payload (roughly). I've flown both amphib Caravans, and straight float Otters, Turbine, and piston. The Caravan will do more trips in a day than an Otter because it is faster. Whether that make the owner more money is hard to say, because I'd bet a kidney that the Caravan is way more expensive than the Otter to maintain. The passengers like the Caravan better. The Caravan can handle worse weather in the air (aside from icing), because generally, they are WAY better equipped with avionics. The float hatches on the Caravan are great for carrying things like Jerry cans, beer, and help move your C or G up. That being said, they do (as I mentioned) need a little more water to takeoff and land. Pilot experience and skill can greatly reduce the take-off runs. In my experience, that only matters in about 1 in 50 trips. The Caravan is available in a 2009 model. The Otters are 40 or 50 years old....

It sounds like they are landing in the lee, so why wouldn't you send the Caravan in, aside from it being overkill? Just curious.

My personal preference is still the Otter, but I would like to see autopilot and better avionics upgrades.

More clear now ??

[mag check]

Don't caravans tend to bend engine mounts etc. in even moderately rough conditions?

[1000 HP]

I've only got about 900 hours on the amphib version, and have landed in up to 3.5 foot waves, with no wrinkles to show. I wouldn't recommend it though as it can be hard on the back

I've heard that too from a Caravan expert. The newer versions (never flown a newer one) have doubler plates on the firewall

[jamesbay]

I know the otter is or can be a big pain in the ass maneuvering on water in big winds, but I would way rather deal with that knowing when you point it into wind,especially big wind, by the time its rolling over onto the step your pretty much flying already and dealing with big sea the big time pucker factor the caravan produces because its still stuck to the water is way out of my comfort zone. I know its getting off topic here, but caravans are lake machines.

[1000 HP]

I gotta agree with you there. The other problem I found with the Caravans, is that the nose has about as much area as the tail, and unlike the Otter, doesn't stay weather-cocked well on a beach. Which can suck.

[West Coast Swell]

Belly boats can handle large rough water ... more so than the standard float plane... the question really is how large are your balls, just because the plane can handle it ... can you is the question!! ... the larger the water the more risky it gets. eg : anyone can sit in front of a piano ... only a few can make it sound great. Same goes for a belly boat. Lots of float pilots .... Belly pilots .... they are hard to find. my two bits.

[Cat Driver]

. Belly pilots .... they are hard to find.

I learn something new every day, what exactly is a belly pilot?

[Siddley Hawker]

[quote]I learn something new every day, what exactly is a belly pilot?[quote].

I don't know either but it sure conjures up an image.

[Cat Driver]

Maybe it is a pilot who dances with his male co-pilots and gets off rubbing bellies?