DHC-2T vs DHC-3T

[Slats]

With essentially equal purchase prices, it is no wonder that the -3T seems so much more popular than the -2T for commercial operations. I'm guessing the difference in operating costs (other than insurance I suppose) between the two is negligible? Does anyone have any knowledge in this area? How would these operating costs stack up against a Caravan?

Also, I can only think of a couple commercial -2T operators: Arctic Sunwest and OMNR. I thought I remember there being one operator on the coast as well, but can't recall for sure.....are there others I'm missing?

[bmc]

SeaAir operates one or two DHC-2T's

[1000 HP]

The Turbo Otter and Caravan flight plan identical pounds per hour fuel burn. The Caravan covers about 35 more miles in that hour, with the amphib Caravan hauling the same load as a straight float equipped Otter. Nobody ever asks: "How old is this Caravan". The Caravan takes more water, so if short is an issue, get an Otter. Plywood is easier to load in a Caravan, but 16' lumber is easier to load in the Otter. Used they both cost about the same. I don't know much about a Turbo-Beaver, and have never flown them

[glorifiedtaxidriver]

From what I know, and I've never flown a -2T, the increase in fuel burn is not made up for in increased useful load. You have to carry more fuel than with a regular -2 and even though its faster, the difference can't be made up. So the return per pound of running one commercially is not all that great. I could be wrong here though. Does anyone have the numbers for a -2T? If I had enough money, I'd definately own one privately.

[enbt]

Air Cab is maybe the one you're thinking of on the coast out of Coal Harbour. Seair has a couple. Transwest in SK. Hearst Air in Ontario just got one, think there's maybe one or two in Red Lake as well. Lots of places used to have them and got rid of them, I guess that tells you something. Seems everybody wants to fly them but very few companies want to operate them.

My ex-boss had a private one that he'd converted from a piston. if i remember right he said the fuel capacity is the same but the turbine burns way more obviously so they only had endurance of 2.5 hours or something....they were always stopping for fuel anyway. Also way faster, cruised somewhere near the yellow line.

[Driving Rain]

The original T Beaver was powered by a PT6-20. It grossed out at 5370 lbs with the tips full. The -20 powered ones didn't like it when it got hot or high. The OMNR had the Viking mods done on all their remaining ones and a PT6-27 was added and the gross climbed to 6100 lbs with full tips. All DeHav turbo beavers carried more fuel than the original beaver. Fuel burn is about 30 imp gal /hr. It's been 26 years since I last flew one but it still ranks as one of the nicest aircraft I've ever flown. If I ever won a big 649 I'd buy one. For the price the Turbo Otter is the winner hands down in the commercial sector, but for sheer flying pleasure and handling the Tbeaver beats them all IMHO.
Cheers

[CLguy]

There are none operating in Red Lk but Mel Air in Fort Frances and Mosbeck's north of Fort Frances operate one as well. They would be the only 2 other than the OMNR that I know of operating commercially in Northwestern Ontario.

[Intentional Left Bank]

The DHC-2T I'm familiar with burns 245 lb/hr at 123 KIAS at all altitudes. 3620 empty, 5730 MTOW with belly tanks, 6000 with full tips, if I remember correctly. Sweet machine, particularly with the Alaskan door mod.

[Cannonballer]

The DHC-2T I'm familiar with burns 245 lb/hr at 123 KIAS at all altitudes. 3620 empty, 5730 MTOW with belly tanks, 6000 with full tips, if I remember correctly. Sweet machine, particularly with the Alaskan door mod.

Those are pretty much the numbers that the Transwest -2T is aswell. It is and origional factory Turbo beaver. With OAE of 3448. I plan for about 250 and hour fuel burn and cruise around 130 mph.

Hands down the most fun and enjoyable airplane i have ever flown.

I am not 100 per cent sure on this but when using the tips and with the 6000 pound gross I am pretty sure it is only about 250 pounds less payload than a amphib -3T.

[Unusual Attitude]

DHC-3T averages about 350lbs/hour in cruise with the -34 at 125-130mph.

[frozen solid]

I've flown all three, but since I've been becoming less intelligent lately I might not be able to give accurate info. I think the Otter is more popular than the turbo beaver in commercial operations because it is bigger and can hold more stuff. It burns a bit more fuel, (beaver: 280-300lbs/ hour, Otter: 350-400 I think) but it also holds more, so the cost is a bit higher but not compared to the amount of stuff you can pack. The turbo beaver will lift an astonishing amount of weight for such a little plane, but so will an otter. On ambhibs an otter weighs about 5000 pounds (again it's been a long time) and grosses 8367, the beav grosses 6000 and weighs I think around 3800 pounds. The Otter goes 118 knots and the beav 122. Both have around 3.5 hours with full belly tanks. Some Turbo Otters have a 9000 pound gross weight, which is pure profit. The (turbo) Beaver has the highest power to weight ratio. It is exciting to fly and I believe that it can take off from anywhere you can land it. From a pilot's perspective it is a lot of fun and is a very capable aircraft. From an owner's perspective the otter carries more stuff. Period. I have never flown one, but I have heard that the otter with the Garratt engine is AS exciting to fly as the turbo beaver. I suppose the Beaver is like a little Garratt otter. The beaver is a tough old thing and you'll probably hurt yourself before you hurt it if you hit the jackpot.

Oddly, if my memory serves correctly, the Caravan and Otter have almost the same empty weights and gross weights. I flew them both on amphibs and the otter weighed 8367 pounds gross and the Caravan was 8360. Empty they both weighed in at around 5000 pounds, although I can't remember exactly. Of course on straight floats these numbers would be much lower. I've flown many Otters on straight floats but no caravans so for comparison I'll only talk about the amphib otter. As previously mentioned, the caravan goes a lot faster, (about 130kts vs 118) so the amount of fuel you need to carry on a given flight is less, this is especially important on a long flight. The caravan can also carry more fuel in the first place. The otter has a larger interior volume but the caravan has a larger door, so even though the otter can haul more cubic feet, the caravan can carry more plywood because of the way the door is set up. An empty caravan will take off in roughly the same amount of room as a (legally) loaded otter.

In those situations where you are out at say a drilling camp, and the guy says "I don't know how much all this stuff weighs," and you are forced to take a guess, the Beaver will fly with whatever you can fit in it. I would say you should be more worried about it sinking than not flying. Obviously common sense will be your guide here. The (amphib pratt and whitney powered) Otter and the caravan will legally carry the same weight, if you happen to "inadvertently" go over this magic number, the amount the caravan will get airborne with falls off drastically. Of course, much depends on the ability of the wretched whip 8000 floats to get on the step, and if again you "inadvertently" overload it, and water goes up to the rear spreader strut, water will pour into your step compartments and you'll have to worry about a sinking aeroplane. So there is a practical limit to your overloading on those planes, if you're one of those guys. If you watch your numbers, the otter and caravan will haul the same load but the otter will fly away like it is empty and the caravan will use about twice the distance to clear 50 feet. By 100 feet the 'van is catching up again. By the time the Otter has gotten to 3000 feet, the caravan pilot is switching on the autopilot and peeking inside the paper bag he got from the camp cook. I always felt that the caravan actually gets on the "step" a little quicker but then skates along for a long time before getting airborne. I would prefer the otter for an ugly load out of a short lake, and I would prefer the Caravan for an easy load of six tourists to a nice lake. Having said that, I like the interior of the Otter a whole lot better. I like having a wall between myself and the assholes in the back most of the time, (I'm not a "people person") and if you think "Otter Back" is bad, try a case of "Caravan Back". The Caravan interior is difficult to keep looking nice, the Otter interior doesn't look nice anyway and is mostly made of METAL.

If I was an air operator, honestly I'd love to have one of each. I know this isn't a helpful statement if you're trying to choose just one, but I'd love to have a turbo otter on straight floats, a caravan on amphibs and a Turbo Beaver on either. The Beaver is a solid, good handling, high performance floatplane with plenty of power and one of the easiest single engine seaplanes to handle on the water, a beautiful plane. The Otter is an Ogre-like freight hauler that can do all the filthy ugly freight hauling and external loads and not bat an eyelash or give the pilot any trouble (except maybe docking in a strong offshore wind) and the Caravan is a capable all-purpose floatplane with just a touch of that corporate thing for the passengers. If you had a good dispatcher you could use a fleet like this to its fullest advantage.

OR, you could just get a twin otter.

[revr]

dont forget about maintenance costs. otter vs caravan is a huge difference.
the caravan costs alot more to maintain due to all the extra systems.
when you get into autopilot, radar, fancy radios, dual instruments etc it can get very expensive. also a set of wip 8000's take alot more maintenance than edo, etc.
wip issues like cables wearing out between fuselage & rear spreader, if you have to do a patch on the bottom skins, also in cold weather with the way the pull up cable housing will accept water while parked, then in the air it freezes now you are stuck with frozen water rudders.
anyway from my view if you dont need the fancy electronics & stuff the otter is the way to go.
love the turbo beaver but the otter is better.

[Louis]

the caravan costs alot more to maintain due to all the extra systems.
when you get into autopilot, radar, fancy radios, dual instruments etc it can get very expensive. [...]
anyway from my view if you dont need the fancy electronics & stuff the otter is the way to go.

Not a float guy here, but are any of these systems required for day VFR flight? No. Hence you can remove some of them to save weight, and others you don't have to maintain.

Plus, Caravans should at least have King silver crown avionics, which aren't bad radios IMO.

And if you keep your 208 on amphibian floats, it makes a very suitable platform for IFR, but you're back with the "fancy radios", not that an Otter wouldn't require them in a similar situation.

[revr]

yes louis you can remove alot of the systems.
there are also alot of other high maintenance items in the caravan vs otter.
like corrosion inspections, trim actuators, deice boots, new service kits every week, etc.
i maintenain a fleet of otters and caravans i can tell you there is a huge difference in maintenance items.
also as for the statement
And if you keep your 208 on amphibian floats, it makes a very suitable platform for IFR, but you're back with the "fancy radios", not that an Otter wouldn't require them in a similar situation.
the turbine otter cant fly IFR so there is no similar situation.

[Slats]

Thanks for all the responses, really great insight and helpful info. Couple more things...

As for the Caravan:

Where short distances and high altitudes are a real concern, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that an empty Caravan probably won't out-perform a STOL kit-equipped 185. Would this be a fair assessment? I have a particular lake in mind, and I feel it is really the territory of a de Havilland machine. A 185 as described can get in and out if conditions are right, but it is very tight. I have seen a 206 with STOL and 550 get out, but it's too tight for my comfort level to try it personally.

Sounds like no matter how you slice it, where IFR equipment is NOT a concern, the 'van is more expensive to operate due to the maintenance costs mentioned by revr.

As for -2T vs. -3T (assuming both are amphibs):

By using the numbers presented here and rough calculations (using 250lbs/hr and 350lbs/hr and $1.50/litre), I figure the Beaver comes in somewhere around $0.75/mile or $85/hour cheaper in fuel than the Otter.

The Beaver with a 6000 lb gross could take full belly tanks and 6 passengers (assuming 3 male, 3 female) up to about 400 miles with 30 minutes reserve.

Full tips would add how much to the endurance of the Beaver; roughly an hour for a total of 4.5 hours? Or was that figure of 3.5 hours including tips?



Do these calculations/assumptions/guesses/hypotheses sound roughly about right?

[Meatservo]

Tip tanks on the turbo beaver add one hour for a total of about 4.3 hours at a high cruise power setting. A belly tank may also be available but I don't know where you would get one or how much it would hold, I've just seen an old picture of a beaver with one. I'm not sure it's an option on the turbo.

[SuperDave]

I may as well ad my opinion into the mix, since it is a wednesday...and wednesdays are the days I usually give my opinions.

Since you do not require IFR capability, but would like a fuel-burn similar to the Turbo Beaver, I would suggest a Garrett-equipped Otter. You'll have all the short/hot/high altitude performance you can dream of, put a whole bunch more poeple on, and still only burn a few gallons/hr more than the -2T.
If you can find a DHC-3 airframe...for say, 700.00 or whatever, put in a Garrett and maybe a long-range rear tank, you're off to the races for almost the same price as the Turbo Beaver. Although the Amphib Wip 8000's probably don't come cheap. Then again, neither do the 6000's.

Good luck!

Dave

[ALF]

Beware of any DHC-3T with a Walter in it. Thay are a throw away engine and TC is just now uncovering that people haven't been tracking cycles with them. This may lead to many other issues in the future.
I personally love the beaver. It is basic enough that it is relatively problem free and yet fast enough to make even a long trip enjoyable.
The 2T with a PT6-34 is an awesome performer.
Wish I had one.

[oldncold]

the turbo beaver / great airpane especially if you can get one of the 66 original dhc turbo beavers then you can have the best of both worlds.

as it is not a pistion to turbine conversion then you can load it up with avionics
and fly ifr commecially just no icing and who wants to fly in that anyhow (not I) .

nest the amphib caravan is a little short on on rudder authority especially in a left to right turn on the water when intially feeding in power and nose high partially I have heard due to the exhaust stack on the right side of centerline.

as previously mentioned caravan is not well suited for outpost camp propane/ drill camp life / also on has to be careful of floor loadings pnds per foot
.
however on the good side the lake your sitting on may be vfr but the airport is ifr can do in a van (properly trained pilot etc. ) and for easy walk on 6 and bags nice way to speed a summer.

dhc-t otter if you have a lot of stuff to move, and many loads ugly this is the machine the only caution is if your locale is traditionally say over the season
a high wind location I would urge ya to get a swamper to save your back and minimize the ugly side of the ole otter in high winds.

[iflyforpie]

the turbo beaver / great airpane especially if you can get one of the 66 original dhc turbo beavers then you can have the best of both worlds.

as it is not a pistion to turbine conversion then you can load it up with avionics
and fly ifr commecially just no icing and who wants to fly in that anyhow (not I).

I think you would wind up with the most expensive Beaver ever if you did all the modifications required for SEIFR and it would be a death trap in this part of the world with no anti ice.

The best of both worlds IMHO would be the new Quest Kodiak.

[oldncold]

Well even the caravan is forboaten when on amphibs or straight floats. in ice regardless of bells an whistles .

For the expense if you have already lashed out a million. 2 what is a 3rd of the next million among friends /lol.


as for speed Ive seen ground speeds of up to 145 knts on a dhc3t and 190 in the van at 10k on amphibs turbo beaver 135 14-ish

the most import factors is in all of this good thread are standard operations questions
1/ where is the machine to spend most of its working time> mountains terrain /short /hot n high/ tundra /high winds or big open water flat lands )

2/ what kind of support will the average pilot be getting ( don't trash me I know all dhc pilots are above average ) ie; are they away from civilization camp job etc for extended periods. stage length of trips flown nothing will burn out an excellent otter pilot faster than 4min hops with no help on the other end.,with 2500 lbs awkward loads.

3/ cost per mile and competition all factors in . accquisition costs insurance , maintenace inculding a good tracking system for components and the like
pilot costs incidentials like charts gps updating service even for vfr machine it is a good idea to keep it up to date .

4 utilization rate. there many things to consider and no one perfect solution
the best one can strive for is good info and the closest fit to your operation . if it were me a standard caravan ifr with known icing with a cargo pod and the amphib floats to go in tourist season./slats best of luck

[iflyforpie]

None of these aircraft so configured are certified for known icing. But for getting out of ice in a pinch (easy enough to encounter if you enter cloud, in Canada, at anytime but the middle of summer) I will take the Caravan's boots or the Kodiak's TKS over the Beaver's.... nothing. Best not to expect too much of any of these aircraft in the IFR world.

[Slats]

Icing is not a factor. Operations would (hopefully) be year round, but primarily summer. Besides, I have a tried and true method for dealing with inadvertant icing encounters that has never failed.....turn around and go back from whence I came!

At this point this is all just dreaming and scheming but this is all great info should it ever take a sudden more serious turn (ie: someone wants to loan me a couple million bucks.)

[wabano]

We operated both this summer.(Beaver full IFR)

The T-Beaver is for fancy contract work, as it is considered "sexy",
while the T-Otter do the grunt work...as by bringing up that few
cords of firewood in the barren as you go pick up all these caribou
hunters and their three dozen antlers and meat...

The caravan would fit in between, I assume.

For ultimate sexy in bush planes, nothing would beat the Helio Stallion...

However, I worked in the states with a guy that blew up in one
on take off somewhere in a Laotian jungle strip...
Poor guy had no face.



Believe it or not, Helio is coming back, according to these guys:
http://www.helioaircraft.com/ourplanes_ ... _stats.htm

Hovewer, for the ultimate STOL, there was nothing that got close
to the Dornier DO-28A

Seem these Laotians never heard of a wobble pump...or pumps in general...

With the bigger engines and three blades props, it will even fly
on floats on one engine...in ground effect!!!
(I still have high pucker factor thinking of the time
I did 20 miles six inches off the brush with the right engine seized!)



This picture will give you an idea of the complexity of the DO-28A...
No KISS(Keep It Simple, Stupid)with these krauts...explain why they are bankrupt!
Drooping ailerons, drooping slotted flaperons, triple slotted flaps
and push-pull rods going right through the two fluel tanks...
So a fuel leak(frequent) mean disassembling the whole wing,
a month loong job!!!