You don't see one of these for sale often

Wow. That looks to be in great shape and a load of fun!
 
There is one of those at my old airport that has been just rotting outside of one of the hangars. I always thought it would be great fun to play with. But the one by me would take far too many thousands of avbucks to bring up to speed. This one looks really nice and other than the ECI cylinders in the engines it looks like a good deal.
 
I wonder if airplanes are like sailboats, in that a motor sailer is known to be a not great sailing vessel, nor is it a great power vessel.

When you combine the two, the compromises end up making the plane or boat, not all that good at either.

That aside, it would be so darn much fun to be able to own and afford such a wonderful toy.

John
 
And it has all the insurance risk advantages of an amphibian, a twin, an uncommon type and a >4 seat aircraft all rolled up into one package! Ouch.

But if I were in the market for a Lake Renegade I would have to give it a look too.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
This one looks really nice and other than the ECI cylinders in the engines it looks like a good deal.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with ECI cylinders?
 
TwinBees had 1 market, the training for multi engine sea plane rating, that market is gone, now the companies that require a multi engine sea rating will give you the training, if you buy a multi engine sea plane, you'll do the the training in your aircraft.

TwinBees are hated in southeast Ak. they take 60' of dock space or they must beach to off load, because they can't put a float over the dock, and if you beach one, they have no reverse to use to back off the beach.

The twins have less useful load than a single, plus they have less freeboard than a single but more than a LA-4-250

I have about 8 hours in the one here at OKH. and they are a blast to fly, fuel usage is about 20 per hour leaned 30 full rich both sides.
 
Tom-D said:
TwinBees had 1 market, the training for multi engine sea plane rating, that market is gone, now the companies that require a multi engine sea rating will give you the training, if you buy a multi engine sea plane, you'll do the the training in your aircraft.

TwinBees are hated in southeast Ak. they take 60' of dock space or they must beach to off load, because they can't put a float over the dock, and if you beach one, they have no reverse to use to back off the beach.

The twins have less useful load than a single, plus they have less freeboard than a single but more than a LA-4-250

I have about 8 hours in the one here at OKH. and they are a blast to fly, fuel usage is about 20 per hour leaned 30 full rich both sides.
Click to expand...

And at 20 gallons/hour you get a scorching 90 kts. At least so I was told by the A&P for the last flying club I was in who restored one. I'm looking for the pictures of it because I think this one is it, but so far I haven't found the pictures I have of it sitting on the ramp in Orlando.

John
 
alaskaflyer said:
And it has all the insurance risk advantages of an amphibian, a twin, an uncommon type and a >4 seat aircraft all rolled up into one package! Ouch.
Click to expand...
No kidding....I wonder how hard it would be to even get coverage in that thing?
 
alaskaflyer said:
And it has all the insurance risk advantages of an amphibian, a twin, an uncommon type and a >4 seat aircraft all rolled up into one package! Ouch.

But if I were in the market for a Lake Renegade I would have to give it a look too.
Click to expand...

tailwheel too!
 
Tom-D said:
TwinBees had 1 market, the training for multi engine sea plane rating, that market is gone, now the companies that require a multi engine sea rating will give you the training, if you buy a multi engine sea plane, you'll do the the training in your aircraft.

TwinBees are hated in southeast Ak. they take 60' of dock space or they must beach to off load, because they can't put a float over the dock, and if you beach one, they have no reverse to use to back off the beach.

The twins have less useful load than a single, plus they have less freeboard than a single but more than a LA-4-250

I have about 8 hours in the one here at OKH. and they are a blast to fly, fuel usage is about 20 per hour leaned 30 full rich both sides.
Click to expand...

In summary: They are even less practical than the rest of the GA fleet.

I'd still love to have one.
 
I used to give Harmon Leonard (RIP) his BFR in his Twin Bee.

The airplane really does have spectacular STOL performance, with an extra 6 feet of wing compared to the single.

Harmon demonstrated that he could takeoff with one engine, off the water. He gunned one and we started a large circle on Lake Washington. Pretty soon we had enough speed to go in a straighter line and the TB took off and climbed. All on one engine.
 
kgruber said:
I used to give Harmon Leonard (RIP) his BFR in his Twin Bee.

The airplane really does have spectacular STOL performance, with an extra 6 feet of wing compared to the single.

Harmon demonstrated that he could takeoff with one engine, off the water. He gunned one and we started a large circle on Lake Washington. Pretty soon we had enough speed to go in a straighter line and the TB took off and climbed. All on one engine.
Click to expand...

I've seen the one here get off the water with 5 guys 2 labradors and a weeks groceries in 11 seconds Throttle up pull back and fly.
 
$%28KGrHqYOKjgE6SbG+imiBOoQb-0%29Cw%7E%7E60_12.JPG
 
Henning said:
Nifty. Am I correct in my understanding that the Twin Bee was a conversion like the Twin Navion?
Click to expand...

It actually has its own TCDS, as a UC-3B, it requires 2 RC-3s to make one, you need 6 feet of wing and 3 extra feet of keel. the nacelles are fabricated from scratch.
2 IO-360 180 horse Lycoming and 2 full feathering props,
 
And all the maintenance of a BOAT and a PLANE. I have always had a fascination for these as the single Bee was the first model I ever built as a kid.

I always liked amphibs, especially the Grumman stuff like the Goose.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
It actually has its own TCDS, as a UC-3B, it requires 2 RC-3s to make one, you need 6 feet of wing and 3 extra feet of keel. the nacelles are fabricated from scratch.
2 IO-360 180 horse Lycoming and 2 full feathering props,
Click to expand...

The later twin navions have their own type certificate. However, even then they're made up out of a single and extra parts. The analogy holds here too.
 
$125k? Bwahahahahahaha

In Philadelphia, it's worth 50 bucks.

ECI cylinders - ask the man who owns one. :D
 
I flew on Saturday (not sure if the other pilot has posted about it yet so I'll spare you the details).

We actually saw one of these on the ramp at our destination and had to check it out! He explained the plane to me and it was funny looking, but cool.
 
That is a really nice example too. Dunno enough about the market to say if its worth the price.
 
Tom-D said:
TwinBees had 1 market, the training for multi engine sea plane rating, that market is gone, now the companies that require a multi engine sea rating will give you the training, if you buy a multi engine sea plane, you'll do the the training in your aircraft.
Click to expand...
That may hold true in the US and Canada, but not so much in the rest of the world. Antilles Seaplanes (G-21G Super Goose), Dornier (CD2 Seastar) and Viking (DHC-6-400) have done market studies that show a potential boom in international seaplane sales over the coming years - and new MES trainig will be a part of that. It's in what used to be called the "Third World" that the new markets - and most of the world's untapped natural resources by coincidence - are to be found these days.

Large flying boat seaplanes disappeared around here because during World War II, it seems like just about every county in the country got a new air or flight training base of some kind. After the war, they all became county airports. Whereas there were very few places to land a large airplane before the war, there were hundreds if not thousands after the war - i.e. no more need to build flying boats to utilize existing waterways to operate large commercial aircraft.

India for example is not just the Number 2 fastest growing automobile market in the whole world (behind China); it's also one of the fastest growing commercial aviation sectors - and it has dozens if not hundreds of coastal islands, resorts, rivers, and other geographic features that can be exploited by seaplanes - but not one seaplane yet operating in commercial service. The market for seaplanes and regional airliners is literally wide open for new development.
 
Tom-D said:
Henning said:
Nifty. Am I correct in my understanding that the Twin Bee was a conversion like the Twin Navion?
Click to expand...
It actually has its own TCDS, as a UC-3B, it requires 2 RC-3s to make one, you need 6 feet of wing and 3 extra feet of keel. the nacelles are fabricated from scratch.
2 IO-360 180 horse Lycoming and 2 full feathering props,
Click to expand...
The TC is A6EA and the correct model designation is UC-1. It was built by the STOL Aircraft Corp. but it was designed and originally certified by United Consultants, hence the UC-1 model designation.

I don't believe that they literally used two Republic RC-3 Seabees to build one UC-1 Twin Bee. The extra few feet of new hull for example has to be fabricated completely from scratch - it doesn't match any of the original lines of the RC-3.
 
Anthony said:
And all the maintenance of a BOAT and a PLANE. I have always had a fascination for these as the single Bee was the first model I ever built as a kid.

I always liked amphibs, especially the Grumman stuff like the Goose.
Click to expand...
Word! ('bout the Goose, too, but the very first model airplane kit that I ever built was a PBY Black Cat. I still have two on my closet shelf - a PBY-5A in 1/72nd scale and a PBY-5 flying boat in 1/48th scale.)

Before I went to A&P school, I spent 6 months working the parts dept. counter at the world's second largest volume Boston Whaler dealership (at the time anyway - the boss won a paid-for vacation trip for 4 to Tahiti that year - 1984.) It was just outside of Baltimore and they got all of the USN, USCG, and all foreign gov't sales via the embassies in DC. That fall, Soldier of Fortune magazine had a spread on the Honduran Navy. The boss got all excited because he had sold them the 25' Outrage "Ramo Raider" gunboats (with a bow-mounted .50 cal and two M60 machine guns in the back) that were pictured in the article.

In any case, one day a guy came in and we chatted a bit. He told me that his philosphy about boats was that they are all just holes in the water that you dump money into.

Later, after getting my A&P and working for a very short time actually, I applied the same reasoning to airplanes - they're just holes in the sky that you dump money into.

So, what does that make seaplanes? Holes in the universe that you dump money into!
 
150Mike said:
The TC is A6EA and the correct model designation is UC-1. It was built by the STOL Aircraft Corp. but it was designed and originally certified by United Consultants, hence the UC-1 model designation.

I don't believe that they literally used two Republic RC-3 Seabees to build one UC-1 Twin Bee. The extra few feet of new hull for example has to be fabricated completely from scratch - it doesn't match any of the original lines of the RC-3.
Click to expand...

The airworthiness certificate on the 1 I maintain says UC-3B, its serial number is #12 of 13 made.
 

Attachments

  • Sea planes 024.jpg
    Sea planes 024.jpg
    178.2 KB · Views: 11
150Mike said:
That may hold true in the US and Canada, but not so much in the rest of the world. Antilles Seaplanes (G-21G Super Goose), Dornier (CD2 Seastar) and Viking (DHC-6-400) have done market studies that show a potential boom in international seaplane sales over the coming years - and new MES trainig will be a part of that. It's in what used to be called the "Third World" that the new markets - and most of the world's untapped natural resources by coincidence - are to be found these days.

Large flying boat seaplanes disappeared around here because during World War II, it seems like just about every county in the country got a new air or flight training base of some kind. After the war, they all became county airports. Whereas there were very few places to land a large airplane before the war, there were hundreds if not thousands after the war - i.e. no more need to build flying boats to utilize existing waterways to operate large commercial aircraft.

India for example is not just the Number 2 fastest growing automobile market in the whole world (behind China); it's also one of the fastest growing commercial aviation sectors - and it has dozens if not hundreds of coastal islands, resorts, rivers, and other geographic features that can be exploited by seaplanes - but not one seaplane yet operating in commercial service. The market for seaplanes and regional airliners is literally wide open for new development.
Click to expand...

Show me a flight school teaching MES in a twin seaplane..

years ago, you needed the rating to get the job, now you get the training by the company. or learn in your own aircraft.

the only Airlines that operate twin seaplanes are operating twin Otters on floats. mostly up north. as for the rest of the world I have no clue.
 
Tom-D said:
The airworthiness certificate on the 1 I maintain says UC-3B, its serial number is #12 of 13 made.
Click to expand...
Somehow, I think that it's much more likely that someone made a mistake filling out the airworthiness certificate than they did filing and approving the whole type certificate. Look it up on the FAA's online Regulatory and Guidance Library for yourself. If you search for "UC-3B" nothing at all comes up - literally "No Documents Found" - but if you search for "UC-1" it takes you to TC no. A6EA - on which the only model listed is the "UC-1".

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...1d9adbbe6685c38525673e0059a495/$FILE/a6ea.pdf

Also, if you do a FAA registration search by Make/Model for Mfg. = STOL and model = "UC-3B" once again the results are "no records found" but if you search for "STOL" and "UC-1" then 13 records come up.

Maybe you ought to have a discussion with your local FSDO and/or the regional ACO. That CoA may not be valid.

And BTW, they made 23 of them - serials 001 through 024, skipping no. 013. Well, actually, the first several had serials that reflected their former identities as models RC-3. There was UC1-R158, which indicates that it was converted from RC-3 s/n 158. There was UC2-R1041, indicating that it was converted from RC-3 s/n 1041. There was also UC3-R362 (from RC-3 s/n 362) and N9501U was registered as s/n UC006. (The 4th and 5th ones built were lost so long ago that I couldn't find any old registration records for them.)

The rest are in the FAA database as just serial numbers 008 through 024. (Actually s/n 024 is no longer on the FAA registry. It was N77GT but it went to Switzerland to the guy who also owns HB-LSK, s/n 018, presumably to use as a parts airplane.)

The 12th one built, that is serial number 012 according to the FAA database, is N123BR. It is registerd to the Rojean Corp of Santa Ana, CA and it is listed there as a 1972 model UC-1 (s/n 012). See for yourself:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=123BR
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Show me a flight school teaching MES in a twin seaplane..

years ago, you needed the rating to get the job, now you get the training by the company. or learn in your own aircraft.

the only Airlines that operate twin seaplanes are operating twin Otters on floats. mostly up north. as for the rest of the world I have no clue.
Click to expand...
http://www.mesrating.com Jones Brothers in Tavares, FL.

And Pacific Coastal Airlines in British Columbia has 4 Grumman G-21A Gooses operating out of Port Hardy.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Twin Bees serial nos. UC1-R158 and UC3-R362 come up in the FAA registration database as "amateur-built" United Consultants model UC-1 aircraft as opposed to "STOL Aircraft Corp."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top