The TRACE Beaver is flying.

[Redneck_pilot86]

The weight of AvGas vs Jet would likely counter most of the weight difference in engines, but with several turbine conversions available, I can't see a market for a piston engine caravan.

[bobo]

In my opinion it is ugly as sin. But then so is the pointy nosed otter when comapared to the original. Someone is always trying to invent a better mouse trap and the Trace Beaver is proof that it always doen't work.

[flyingsafely]

Does the TRACE engine have a reversible prop?

Yes. It's a four blade reversing MT composite prop.

[Cat Driver]

In my opinion it is ugly as sin.

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder, I sort of like it, for sure it is far from ugly.

[Beefitarian]

Is the prop a four blade partially because it is an 8 cylinder engine?

[Hornblower]

Well if it performs as advertized, and is reliable, with the power (if it's really a comparable 600 hp) and speed anywhere near 190 MPH, and the SFC of the water cooled engine, this would be a game changer. No standard beaver would be able to compete. Just curious though FS, what is the projected cost of a an O/H or replacement engine once the mod is incorporated?

And I'm with Cat, I think it looks neat, not that I think the standard Beaver looks bad ( I like the radial engine profile), but it still looks nicer than the rat-nosed MK III. ... and since when did looks equate into how an airplane makes money for its owners anyways?

[beech 18]

I'm with bobo on this.

The Beaver with the 985 is better looking.
The Otter with the 1340 is to.
It hard to get round engines out of us guys.

[1000 HP]

Yeah for sure. But if it really is quiet and smooth... Hmm....

I find myself often saying "EH?" because I really have a bit of hearing loss. I blame the turbines on the dock more than the beautiful PZL 1820. But I am hoping to hear the grandkids talk so it would be good to have a quieter engine...

Plus, the less vibration on the airframe would be good.

[Cat Driver]

Some of the comments here got me to thinking about radial engines and I am trying to remember how many different airplanes I have flown with radials on them.

So....as I recall the first one was a Stinson SR9 then the Stearman then the Beech 18 then the Beaver then the Norseman then the Otter then the DC3 then the PBY then the DC6 then the C117....

....way over 10,000 hours on radials as I recall.

But I still think that Beaver with the V8 looks real cool.

[iflyforpie]

Some might not be aware of this, but the Beaver was originally supposed to have the Gipsy Major engine rather than the 985. This is why the cowling and the fuselage are faired together so badly and why it has such awesome STOL performance--it was designed to have much less power. I wonder what the history of the Beaver would have been like if they had kept the Gipsy? Would we all be as obsessed and say that real engines are upside down ones? More likely, it would have been relegated to the scrap heaps of history like the underpowered Fairchild Husky.

For an operator making money, looks and heritage come dead last. Operators who choose an airplane or engine because it is 'cool' and then try to make it work go broke fast. Most Otters are now turbine because they make far more economic sense as a turbine aircraft.

The TRACE engine though has much larger hurdles to make it through than looks and heritage. The power plant itself seems excellent. The performance looks amazing. Even the price--with some reservations--isn't that bad. This would look even more promising if we could start getting TBOs into multi thousand hour range.... it's competing with engines from the 1930s... how hard could it be? That not only translates to less engine reserve, but less downtime and potentially less overhaul cost.

But there are many potential problems How long will it be supported or is this another pie-in-the-sky venture that will go belly up in a few years? Will it be able to run auto gas or is this just a late comer to the pack of dinosaur 100LL engines slowly plodding towards extinction? People have sought to change the reciprocating engine game before in aviation with innovative ideas--remember the Porsche Mooney? It died an early death because that engine failed on every conceivable level from performance to economics to weight to simplicity.

[Cat Driver]

Ahh the upside down gipsy's..

Remember that neat little twin with the gipsy queens in it?

We had two of them at a company I used to fly for.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Some might not be aware of this, but the Beaver was originally supposed to have the Gipsy Major engine rather than the 985. This is why the cowling and the fuselage are faired together so badly and why it has such awesome STOL performance--it was designed to have much less power. I wonder what the history of the Beaver would have been like if they had kept the Gipsy? Would we all be as obsessed and say that real engines are upside down ones? More likely, it would have been relegated to the scrap heaps of history like the underpowered Fairchild Husky.

For an operator making money, looks and heritage come dead last. Operators who choose an airplane or engine because it is 'cool' and then try to make it work go broke fast. Most Otters are now turbine because they make far more economic sense as a turbine aircraft.

The TRACE engine though has much larger hurdles to make it through than looks and heritage. The power plant itself seems excellent. The performance looks amazing. Even the price--with some reservations--isn't that bad. This would look even more promising if we could start getting TBOs into multi thousand hour range.... it's competing with engines from the 1930s... how hard could it be? That not only translates to less engine reserve, but less downtime and potentially less overhaul cost.

But there are many potential problems How long will it be supported or is this another pie-in-the-sky venture that will go belly up in a few years? Will it be able to run auto gas or is this just a late comer to the pack of dinosaur 100LL engines slowly plodding towards extinction? People have sought to change the reciprocating engine game before in aviation with innovative ideas--remember the Porsche Mooney? It died an early death because that engine failed on every conceivable level from performance to economics to weight to simplicity.

The original proposed engine was the Gypsy Queen a 400 hp Supercharged 6 cylinder inverted engine developing 400 hp, not the 150 hp Gypsy Major, because the British bosses of DH wanted them to use a British engine. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed and the POS British engine was dropped in favour of the legendary P & W R985.

[iflyforpie]

I was lazy and took a chance on not Googling it.... I thought the Major was the bigger engine.... like the 4360 Wasp Major.... just imagine that on the nose of the Beav!

[1000 HP]

The Gaffrays put a 600 HP PZL on a Beaver back in the 80's. Awesome performance. Kinda bad visibility. I remember when it got sold to a guy who in short order spread it all over the bush.

[flyingsafely]

What's the overhaul going to cost? And what will be involved in it? New engine, sleeves?

Overhaul is $40,000. If required, the steel cylinder sleeves are bored out 0.010" over. The sleeves can be bored up to 0.030" over in multiple overhauls. The consumables such as all bearings are replaced.

Our current price for an O/H on a R985 is about $34,000 at about the same TBO. A typical turbine overhaul is $200,000 or more at about 3600 hours. (On the turbine you'd have the $25,000 hotsection at about 1800 hours as well).

[Kzanol]

No standard beaver would be able to compete.

With a 5600lbs upgross & anything over 150mph neither would any turbine otter. For camp operators who only operate 6 months a year this is the answer (as long as it is reliable). It would have no problem taking 4 guys and all their gear 150 miles away everytime. No more cessna overloads or having to put the 4 guys in the otter because they had too much shit. As for TRACE's 750hp, maybe put that in an otter? I know the orenda was underpowered but this one may be the way to go instead of the turbine. I know that an operator here in Red Lake paid over 750k to convert his otter coming up 3 years ago. Not sure if they have even been able to pay it off yet.

[Hornblower]

Overhaul is $40,000.

That's very comparable, and if you take into account the increased speed, decreased SFC and higher gross, there is probably a significant $/lb/mile advantage ... too lazy to figure it out now though.

[duCapo]

I'm with Cat. it looks pretty good and Bill Alder is involved, he knows his Beavers, I had a discussion with him in Victoria at the Viking conference. I think one day in the not too far future, we will not be able to operate the 985 commercially on the Beaver. This could well be an alternative to a turbine. Maybe just my paranoia, when it comes to TC, but there you have it. I will probably get trashed for saying it, it is just my opinion, I sincerely hope I am wrong.

[bronson]

I started looking into the Thunder in the '80s. My thought was it would be a common engine for almost the whole fleet, Dhc-2,3,6 , Goose and Mallard. Seems to me the Thunder was to get something like .47 hp/lb (fuel)/hr. which was better than even the 985 I think and the extra 100 horses would have been nice on the Otter. Too bad all these years later and the thing is still in development.

[Human Factor]

This thread is useless without an audio clip of the V8 at take-off power.

[bmc]

I think it looks ok.

It would be interesting to do the number crunching of operating that machine on a sched run. More payload and faster trips could mean more revenue than you could realize with a stock machine. Depending on your operation, it would be interesting to find the break even point.

flyingsafely....what is the sales pitch regarding breakeven on the investment? You must have some numbers based on some scenarios.

[skymarc]

I like the look too, too bad its not a diesel and burn Jet A !
100LL is expensive and getting harder to get up north.

What kind of fuel burn and cruise speed are we talking ?

[Road Trip]

I heard pretty high 30-35 gallons / hour. But that's second had would be nice to know the official numbers.

[rigpiggy]

I heard pretty high 30-35 gallons / hour. But that's second had would be nice to know the official numbers.

They show 500 hp for cruise so if that is the case, fuel flows aren't bad. the proof in the pudding would be a side by side fly off, using the same fuel flows, and comparing speeds.

[fish4life]

maybe I'm naive but with the extraordinary leaps in engine technology and reliability these days from car engines perhaps it is about time aviation engines take a step back and re-analyze where they are coming from some of these new engines with direct injection are getting 12:1 compression ratio's on regular grade fuel with the torque and power curves much flatter then they ever used to be so with a little tuning an engine running at 3000rpm would not be very hard to do. The problem with most aviation engines is they are stuck being air cooled and as a result will always be more inherently unreliable and produce much less hp / cu since they have to allow much greater tolerances in the engine to expand and contract with limited and uneven cooling air gives, while a liquid cooled engine can be made to much tighter specs as it is always going to be operating within a given temperature range. An example could be the new "ecoboost" as for calls it they escape has a 1.6L ecoboost producing 173hp and a less usable 5700rpm but 184lb/ft at only 2500rpm, that is a 97 cu in engine we are talking about, the 2.0L ecoboost is an even more impressive 231hp @ 5500rpm but a very health 270lb/ft at 3000rpm. By the way that 2L engine is only 122 cubes. I realize that weight of car engines could be an issue but the radiator and associated parts can be shrunk substantially as a result of not sitting in stop and go traffic like a car, as well when you can take an engine that is a 1/4 to a 1/3 of the displacement of an aviation engine of similar power the weight will become a lot closer. Now take into consideration that these new technology car engines will probable only burn 1/3 - 1/2 the gas (just estimating) of its aviation counterpart you no longer need to carry as much gas further increasing the weight differential. Lets face it general aviation is dying and dying quickly it desperately needs and injection of new life and the only way I see that happening is if they car modify these new tech car engines for airplanes, much more fuel effecient and at half the cost of a traditional aviation engine this is the new way to go.

end of rant