dark light

Reply To: DHC-2 cn 672

Home Forums Historic Aviation DHC-2 cn 672 Reply To: DHC-2 cn 672

#849654
J Boyle
Participant

That’s a bit naive.

That’s a bit smug…
You did notice I said “looks like it only needs reassembly…” ? (Emphasis added).

1. Beavers in North America are working (and expensive) planes. Most that look anywhere near this good don’t tend to sit and rot, so probably not corroded from sitting outside unflown for years. Within 15 miles of me at two airports there is a Bonanza, an early 60s 172/182, Aztec, 310, Twin beech and Mooney Cadet. All those aircraft need restoration and make this ac look just off the assembly line.
2. With Kenmore mods indicate it was (fairly) recently worked on. It hasn’t been rotting since being surplused.
3. Nice paint. In my experience, planes left to rot in the “back 40” rarely have fresh paint.
4. If you’ve spent any time on DHC2.com, you’ll see plenty of neglected beat up/wrecked Beavers. This aircraft doe not appear to be one of them. I spent a day at Kenmore in the early 70s photographing recently surplused Army Beavers…after a few years at D-M and in the (lack of) care of foreign governments, many of those were rough.

Of course this one might have a run out engine (something that probably would not be done in the UK), dated avionics or tatty interior, after all the aircraft is 60+ years old. MY point was, whatever needs this ac may have, this Beaver is far better than most of the restorations I’ve been a part of or watched.

Now, If you’re done insulting me, allow me to point out the Hamilton Metalplane on floats in the background.
It’s the only flying example….

A friend knows the owner who reports it’s a beast to fly…and I’m sure the floats don’t improve its handling qualities any.