Warbird Information Exchange

Viking Acquires DH Type Certificates

Wonder i they will build new beavers?

If they do build new Beavers, they'll be Turbo Beavers.

Nice Beaver!

O.K. I couldn't resist the Leslie Nielsen reference.



What's the real big difference between a Beaver and a 195? Or in other words, whats the knock on 195's? The one person I've known who's flown both said he didn't like the vision/view in the 195.

I like both planes, but the Beaver cost's a heck of a lot more.

O.P. wrote:Nice Beaver!

O.K. I couldn't resist the Leslie Nielsen reference.



What's the real big difference between a Beaver and a 195? Or in other words, whats the knock on 195's? The one person I've known who's flown both said he didn't like the vision/view in the 195.

I like both planes, but the Beaver cost's a heck of a lot more.

Hi OP! In a nutshell, the big difference is size, payload and don't forget
thirst. The 195 loaded is about where the Beaver begins empty. The Beav
is about 1/3 larger in everthing...like I say tho..this is nutshell.

For SEXY tho, the 195 wins. A 56year-old C-195 is sexier than the Beaver of the same vintage.

Sorry...nor could I resist.

Grrr. Slack reporting.

de Havilland type responsibility lies with de Havilland Support Ltd. ( http://www.dhsupport.com/ ) de Havilland CANADA is what they are talking about, and the article makes clear from it's content, but DH and DHC are separate entities with different types built, excepting the Chipmunk.

DHC was a great company, with great aircraft designs. Pity DHA (Australia) never did as well.

O.P. wrote:What's the real big difference between a Beaver and a 195? Or in other words, whats the knock on 195's?

Beaver has a lot more power and is a bigger airplane. Never flown a Beaver, but I did own and fly a 195. My guess is that the Beaver has much more docile landing characteristics too. Beaver has 450 HP while the 195 had a 300 HP Jacobs (or 350 with the turbo STC). Cessna 190 looks the same and has a 240 HP Continental by the way.

O.P. wrote:What's the real big difference between a Beaver and a 195?

The Beaver is a utility aircraft, designed to do commercial jobs. The 195 is a general aviation aircraft. Work or fun! Because they both are good aircraft, their abilities extend into the other's territory, but that's what they were designed to do.

airnutz wrote:

O.P. wrote:What's the real big difference between a Beaver and a 195? Or in other words, whats the knock on 195's? The one person I've known who's flown both said he didn't like the vision/view in the 195.

I like both planes, but the Beaver cost's a heck of a lot more.

Hi OP! In a nutshell, the big difference is size, payload and don't forget
thirst. The 195 loaded is about where the Beaver begins empty. The Beav
is about 1/3 larger in everthing...like I say tho..this is nutshell.

When I said payload, I was using the generic term. The 195 was designed
to haul businessmen,hence 195 Businessaire. Dee Beaber was designed to
haul alot more..eh mes Ami's? The 195 happened to be the last taildragger
business machine. Most 195's were fitted with the 275hp Jacobs.

We have a 195 at La Porte corroding away that I would LOVE to mother
and TLC back to life. I had forgotten about the 3chute flare-dispenser on
the port side cabin-aft. Always loved those birds!

Here's a good online article for OP and all to peruse..it gives the plusses
and foibles of the 195. Be careful when looking to purchase one...lots of
ground-loop and ground-accidents due to the failure to meet the demands
of the reduced visibility from the cabin.
www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2005/a ... na195.html

Edit... link wrong..fixed now.

airnutz wrote:...lots of ground-loop and ground-accidents due to the failure to meet the demands of the reduced visibility from the cabin.

No, lots of ground-loop and ground-accidents from poor pilots failing to meet the demands of any taildragger aircraft or get the proper training. The plane is blind to the right (for the pilot) but very good to the left. You can even stick your head out of the roll-down window (probably not a good idea on landing though).

The plane is top heavy and has a lot of momentum, a situation that lots of taildraggers share. Mine had the heavy gear, I suspect that the light gear would worsen this situation. Never flew one with the crosswind gear, but some love it, others hate it. Never met someone who was in-between.

bdk wrote:

airnutz wrote:...lots of ground-loop and ground-accidents due to the failure to meet the demands of the reduced visibility from the cabin.

No, lots of ground-loop and ground-accidents from poor pilots failing to meet the demands of any taildragger aircraft or get the proper training. The plane is blind to the right (for the pilot) but very good to the left. You can even stick your head out of the roll-down window (probably not a good idea on landing though).

The plane is top heavy and has a lot of momentum, a situation that lots of taildraggers share. Mine had the heavy gear, I suspect that the light gear would worsen this situation. Never flew one with the crosswind gear, but some love it, others hate it. Never met someone who was in-between.

Thanks BDK for passing on your insight of experience!

Yeahh...I was afraid tat run-on sentence was going to come back and bite
me. That was the 2nd time that morning that I attempted to post comment
on the 195. The 2nd version which you read was a bit too condensed as I
was trying to beat, yet another "connection lost" boot off the net. Courtesy
of my local phone monopoly who assures me ....blah..blah..blah..
I haven't had a clear line till now..maybe...

Anyway, what I originally said were comments culled from the P&P article
offered as lead-ins to the link. The article warned, if one was looking to
own a 195 to be careful..many were damaged in ground-loops and others
in ground accidents. Inspect carefully before you buy. Every machine has
it's limitations and needs..some folks fail to realize this and the machine
suffers. Caveat emptor...