http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mrJ5_LnF0Q

All it takes is $$ and you can have one too
Sherpa turbo another great bush plane

sjr, I combined both your posts as it looks like this is supposed to be the caption to your link.


Mark

Thanks Mark

Been watching this airplane for a long time. I hope they can get it into meaningful production numbers.

That looks like a hell of a airplane!

If I had the funds that would be my airplane. The thing is really incredible.

And the fly-away price is going to be what? $Million.4-ish?

Way back when it first came out with a Lycoming 400 HP recip the asking price was about 700K.

So I'm guessing you are in ball park with that 1.4ish mill number once you add a turbine up front.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
Way back when it first came out with a Lycoming 400 HP recip the asking price was about 700K.

So I'm guessing you are in ball park with that 1.4ish mill number once you add a turbine up front.

Well I know what a turboprop engine sells for...

But after posting that I rethought/recalculated and think 1.6million is far more likely.

From the specs it looks to be a more capable aircraft than a PC-6 Turbo-Porter in all respects.

Range, Payload capacity, short take-off, landing roll...

Not to mention the Cr-Mo tube frame construction and quickly removeable exterior skin would make working on it a breeze...

I'd rather see it powered with a PT6 Engine, but...

It looks like it would be a Super Duper replacement for a Super Cub...

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
It looks like it would be a Super Duper replacement for a Super Cub...

Pretty much....

In the 70's got a handful of hours in a Helio Stallion max performance was pretty impressive even for today

840 hp bush plane.
102' takeoff
120' landing.

188mph cruising speed

I think I am in love.

Just curious, what do you guys see as the application? Replacement for the Beaver?

Not sure, but I think the Beaver burns something like 25 gallons per hour and has a payload of 1200#'s on floats. At least thats the max I'm allowed to bring hunting. Also not sure, but I think I pay $1,000.00 per hour for travel time. Maybe its $800.00.

If this thing costs what you think and burns what it does, whos gonna buy it and whos gonna hire it?

Just curious and would be interested in pilots opinions.

Scott,

I know you have seen the influx of turbine powered Otters in the DLG area and many operators are using them around the state. It seems that price per person may be more reasonable. I used to plan 20 gallons an hour in the Beaver crusing with a 28/18 power setting and a touch of flap to keep the tail up. Although I have never had a 985 fail, the turbines sure have the statistical edge for TBF and TBO. Caravans with the Honeywell conversion are popping-up as well, but I do not see them hanging with the takeoff performance of the Otter.

I think I read that the Sherpa Turbo has a 3500# payload capacity and >300gallon fuel Cap.

This means that the Sherpa's fuel capacity (>1800#) is heavier than max gross on a super cub (1750#)
and the Sherpa can lift the equivalent weight of a pair of Super Cubs inside it.

It's appearance is deceptive, it's a damned big "little" airplane.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Just curious, what do you guys see as the application? Replacement for the Beaver?

Not sure, but I think the Beaver burns something like 25 gallons per hour and has a payload of 1200#'s on floats. At least thats the max I'm allowed to bring hunting. Also not sure, but I think I pay $1,000.00 per hour for travel time. Maybe its $800.00.

If this thing costs what you think and burns what it does, whos gonna buy it and whos gonna hire it?

Just curious and would be interested in pilots opinions.

What does it cost to convert a Beaver from a R-985 to a PT-6?

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Just curious, what do you guys see as the application? Replacement for the Beaver?

Not sure, but I think the Beaver burns something like 25 gallons per hour and has a payload of 1200#'s on floats. At least thats the max I'm allowed to bring hunting. Also not sure, but I think I pay $1,000.00 per hour for travel time. Maybe its $800.00.

If this thing costs what you think and burns what it does, whos gonna buy it and whos gonna hire it?

Just curious and would be interested in pilots opinions.

What does it cost to convert a Beaver from a R-985 to a PT-6?

Not really sure what a R-985 or a PT-6 is but I'm guessing you're talking about the radial to turbo prop conversion and I've been told its a toy. As I understand it, the investment in new motor will never offset the savings in operating costs.

Actually, the turbine planes haven't been here that much. Wood River Lodge wrecked their turbo Beaver and Otter and RAT Air/ FreshwaterAdventures quit leasing the turbo Otter they were bringing in. Ak West uses one? but I think they operate out of the Kenai area and don't come over this way too much.

I can see the obvious performance benefit from the video. It looks to me like a pilot could load two hunters, two moose and camp and get 'em all out in one trip. Huge bonus for scheduling and safety, but if your working by the hour theres no real attraction.

For an existing Beaver or Otter operator, what is the financila incentive to upgrade? Ok, any Part 135 operator?

Again, not disagreeing about any of this, just curious. I live near the float plane base, I use them occasionally, I think planes are neat-o.

Scott,

The Pratt & Whittney R 985 is the original radial engine that powered the beaver. The Prat & Whittney PT-6 is a general purpose turbo prop which is what powers some turbo beavers.They also have a Garret conversion.

The PT-6 burns more fuel. However it is WAY more reliable and WAY less maintenance not to mention it has a huge advantage in increased overhaul times.

The truth of the matter is two fold at some point there are not going to be anymore R-985 cores or parts available. And the petroleum manufacturers are trying their darnedest to quit producing 100LL aviation fuel. So at some point the turbo prop becomes a necessity not a luxury.

I sat down with the chief pilot of Northern Air Cargo back in 1991 and had a long discussion about this very thing. They were trying to figure a way to re engine the DC-6 with turbo props as the radial R-2800's were simply becoming untenable to operate due to the lack of parts and serviceable replacement engines.

They wound up replacing the whole fleet with 737-200's instead.

The Wood River Lodge accident was caused by pilot error. You just can't land an amphib with the gear down on water it always ends with a flipped over airplane and unfortunately in that case a dead pilot.

The last DHC-2 beaver was built in 1967. At some point you've reached your last rebuild and you've got to replace with something newer. Not to mention every year another couple of these mighty old birds are crashed and destroyed. they just aren't making any more of them.

I don't know what the replacement will be. I don't know if traditional bush flying will even be a viable business in the future. But if it is we'll have have something that can fill the void when the last Beaver gets sent to the recycling plant. The Sherpa fills that void nicely but I think it's to early in the process to ever be commercial success.