Plane of the Week #5: deHavilland Otter/Beaver family

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-2_Beaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-3_Otter

Okay so yet again it is not one particular plane...but this family is just to good to break up!

For those heathens un-familiar with what these planes are, let me sum it up for you: they are true Bush planes. Personally, Im inclined to say 'the best' bush planes, but some Cessna owner or Piper or whatever might get irritated about that....so I guess I will say it anyways 

The Beaver and Otter are both single engine, high winged, tail draggers built for STOL operations. For those that need that acronym explained: Short-Take-Off- and Landing. To that end these water dwelling mammalians have a high chambered wing similar in style to the Grumman AgCat talked about last time. This gives tremendous lift, at the cost of speed. BUT, as far as speed goes, a Bush plane only needs to be faster than the alternatives (like a dog sled or snow machine). This wing though has high aspect ratio as well, further enhancing its lifting power. The engine of the Beaver/Otter was normally a Pratt and Whitney Radial of some kind (usually Wasp) with Beaver's normally carrying radials and Otters increasingly sporting turbo props.
One quick note on Otter vs Beaver. An Otter is simply an enlarged Beaver, in fact originally the Otter was going to be called the 'King Beaver'. Personally I am very thankful they went with Otter 
Okay, back to the planes. Now about the airframes, they are very simple with squared cross sections and aluminum skinning and frame. This square cross section is a blatant no-no from an aerodynamic stand point as well as for pressurization, however for the Beaver/Otter's intended role it is perfect. A round cross section could make things awkward to load unless the fuselage was grossly over sized. Those doubting the awkwardness of a round fuselage versus a square one can try loading up a King Air 90 with several large people plus their large baggage! (Just did this a couple of days ago). The Beaver/Otter's were designed with the intention of being able to load just about anything with in its weight limit and being loaded with it potentially by hand or simple tools. Unlike modern freight dogs in the Lower 48, in the Bush sometimes the creature comforts of unloading cargo (or large passengers  ) might not be present! Such as those high-tech devices known as hi-lo's (or fork truck).
To that end, they have wide cargo doors and in the cargo config, a wide open cabin to stuff junk in. The Otter being clearly much larger than a Beaver and thus being able to fit much more at a weight and performance penalty.

Now on to the service record of these planes! The Beaver initially saw slow production. The thing that seems prevalent with bush pilot's buying planes is they first look for cheap-o's  (so no new planes) then go with what they KNOW is reliable. Problems with introducing a new bush plane are 1) higher price since they are brand new and 2) they are brand new so service record not built up yet. Thus it really took for the US Military buying ~968 of these honey's in ~'51 to get the Beaver established. 2/3 of these US Beavers went to the Army, the rest mainly USAF. These quickly saw action in the Korean War where they became loved for their reliability and STOL performance even in the harsh Korean winters. The British military as well as several South American militaries also bought them albeit in less numbers. Most Beavers I have seen to be honest were sporting some vintage Army or USAF style paint scheme with one or two even sporting a USN or USMC scheme. Obviously RAF or the British Army Air Corps colors are prevalent too. So if you mention to me deHavilland Beaver what pops into mind is one sporting olive drab with ARMY written on the sides.
In total Beaver production hit around 1600, while Otter production hit between 400-500. Of note too is that the Otter started life very shortly after the Beaver entered production since the Otter was essentially a stretched Beaver and thus would be easy to engineer.

Today, both planes are still being used throughout the Canadian and Alaskan bush with plenty owned as warbirds. One particularly well known modern user is Kenmore Air:
http://www.kenmoreair.com/Our-Planes
The service side of Kenmore also has more STCs (Supplemental Type Certificates) than any other user of the Beaver. The are still continuously upgrading them, introducing GPS units and even glass panels:
http://www.kenmoreairharbor.com/index.html
FSX users should be familiar with the Kenmore Air missions but I encourage one to explore the water ways with the float Beaver in FSX.

A good site I found on the Beaver:
http://www.bush-planes.com/DeHavilland-DHC-2-Beaver.html
The Otter side
http://www.bush-planes.com/DeHavilland-DHC-3-Otter.html

Premier Aircraft has a wide assortment of Otters and Beavers available for FS9 and FSX:
http://www.premaircraft.com/new_aircraft_menu/index.html
Some of these planes from this site can be a little crude in one way, but over all I am pretty pleased with this site. These folks have put in a lot of effort to build such a massive library and that should be respected. So I would give these planes a whirl.

Oh, almost forgot, I read in my Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide that the USN test pilot school still has 3 Beaver's in service. Why they would still be around, I have no idea.

For those non-Canadians reading this, you should know that these airplanes are ingrained into Canadian history. Besides being the most successful Canadian design. So much so that it has appeared on Canadian currency for its role in supplying the far-flung and isolated communities that depend on a bush plane for supply and connection to the outside world. The most successful and dependable of all would be the deHavilland Beaver and its big brother, the Otter.

At any rate, to sum up: If you want to know what a bush plane is supposed to look like, its supposed to look like a Beaver.

Might be a little off but: "If God wanted aircraft engines to be straight, Pratt and Whitney would have made them that way!"

As some may have noticed, my Plane of the Week articles are not necessarily every week. Sorry, real life tends to get in the way a lot.

As always, any suggestions are appreciated.
By the way jetprop, I am thinking about the P-39/63 family. I have a fantastic book covering it but it is at my parents place. So, when I get that book I will cover them. In the mean time Jetprop, look up the Airabonita 
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/aibonita.htm