By: Willip26
- 24th May 2009 at 23:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
10 months on from its unhappy incident and seeing the B206 sinking further and further into the long grass at Shoreham I was beginning to wonder if G-FLYP would ever move again under its own power.
Pleasing to be able to report therefore that within the past two weeks the removed engine and prop have been re-installed and the aircraft now looks set for hopefully many more flying hours.
Anybody know by the way whatever happened to G-BSET?
By: EK764
- 27th May 2009 at 05:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Beagle to fly again! This is great news. Who is responsible for its continued airworthiness? This is the same engine used to power Cessna's 404 and 421 models.
By: Beagle_Gent
- 21st February 2010 at 18:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have a Series 1 in need of repair. I do have a spare crated engine.
I would very much like to repair this aircraft to flight status or sell it to someone who can.
ignore the asking price, if there is still one on the page. Also, the aircraft was moved shortly after the photos and now sits on the tarmac. I would accept flying trades as well.
By: mike currill
- 21st March 2010 at 01:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 206 is a notoriously difficult and expensive aircraft to operate and all credit to Key for keeping this one alive.
If it were to be fitted with alternative engines, not being a permit aircraft, the mountain of paperwork and associated costs would exceed the aircraft's operational ceiling and it would also no longer be an authentic preserved aircraft.
Educated guesses only.
Moggy
Only just had another look at this thread and I with you about the credit Key deserve for keeping her alive and the fact that it would no longer be authentic if the engines were changed for something easier to obtain spares for. I had forgotten about her not being a permit aircraft and the amount of paperwork changing the type of engines would cause. Something about the paperwork equaling the weight of the aircraft comes to mind or in the case of what constitutes a major mod probably three times the MTOW.
By: britfrog
- 1st October 2010 at 12:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the biggest mistake made with the flypast a/c was putting it on the uk register under current caa policy anyone with a twin or even large single needs to have their head read if they stay with the CAA.
I have flown the b206 N181WW many times and have helped maintain it for many years so know the enormity of the work involved in keeping it airworthy if you then have to maintain it according to CAA requirements it would be far cheaper to operate a small airliner.
However I know of two large sources of spare parts. engine parts are easy, series 1 props are rarer than hens teeth but there are only 2 new and 1 damaged in existance, hence the us plane which has been for sale for some years.
By: Auster Fan
- 2nd October 2010 at 22:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Possibly, although one book I have seems to indicate that B.074 was the prototype as G-35-28, plus the only other one (B.080 - as shown), but see the list below...
By: Newforest
- 3rd October 2010 at 09:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
PT-IQH originally G-AWLN. Interesting that the CAA registration card showed it initially as a series 2 and this was crossed out and series 3 substituted.
C-GBGL, c/n 074 went the other way, from a series 3 to a series 2 and was cancelled from the register in 1998.
By: low'n'slow
- 23rd April 2011 at 07:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Great to see it back in the air again, and all credit to those who have put in the hard work to make it possible.
I and I'm sure a few others, had assumed the worst when we heard of its engine problems a few years ago. Delighted to see that you've persevered when many others would have given up.
By: Newforest
- 23rd April 2011 at 08:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, it is great news, but why do our Forum sponsors both here and in print seem to be so coy in divulging the details of problems, progress and successes? A historic machine operated by a historic publication should be more open, I think.
Posts: 2,392
By: ollieholmes - 21st August 2008 at 18:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Permission was granted yes.
Posts: 313
By: Willip26 - 24th May 2009 at 23:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
10 months on from its unhappy incident and seeing the B206 sinking further and further into the long grass at Shoreham I was beginning to wonder if G-FLYP would ever move again under its own power.
Pleasing to be able to report therefore that within the past two weeks the removed engine and prop have been re-installed and the aircraft now looks set for hopefully many more flying hours.
Anybody know by the way whatever happened to G-BSET?
Wicked Willip :diablo:
Posts: 8,846
By: Newforest - 25th May 2009 at 07:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Great news there!
According to G-INFO, G-BSET was withdrawn permanently in 2004 and presumably is still at Cranfield?
Posts: 313
By: Willip26 - 25th May 2009 at 13:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hope so, or maybe it is one of the ones that moved on to Boscombe Down as per post18#?
Wicked Willip :diablo:
Posts: 57
By: EK764 - 27th May 2009 at 05:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Beagle to fly again! This is great news. Who is responsible for its continued airworthiness? This is the same engine used to power Cessna's 404 and 421 models.
Posts: 16
By: Seymour Seaward - 18th August 2009 at 00:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
G-FLYP got up and flew back to Cranfield yesterday afternoon!!:)
Posts: 2,828
By: EGTC - 18th August 2009 at 03:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is G-FLYP based at Cranfield?
I'd love to get a few photographs of G-FLYP when shes there.
Posts: 13
By: Beagle_Gent - 21st February 2010 at 18:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have a Series 1 in need of repair. I do have a spare crated engine.
I would very much like to repair this aircraft to flight status or sell it to someone who can.
It was XS-781.
More Info at:
http://www.starweb.net/beagle
ignore the asking price, if there is still one on the page. Also, the aircraft was moved shortly after the photos and now sits on the tarmac. I would accept flying trades as well.
Thanks,
Rick
Posts: 8,505
By: mike currill - 21st March 2010 at 01:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only just had another look at this thread and I with you about the credit Key deserve for keeping her alive and the fact that it would no longer be authentic if the engines were changed for something easier to obtain spares for. I had forgotten about her not being a permit aircraft and the amount of paperwork changing the type of engines would cause. Something about the paperwork equaling the weight of the aircraft comes to mind or in the case of what constitutes a major mod probably three times the MTOW.Posts: 6
By: britfrog - 1st October 2010 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the biggest mistake made with the flypast a/c was putting it on the uk register under current caa policy anyone with a twin or even large single needs to have their head read if they stay with the CAA.
I have flown the b206 N181WW many times and have helped maintain it for many years so know the enormity of the work involved in keeping it airworthy if you then have to maintain it according to CAA requirements it would be far cheaper to operate a small airliner.
However I know of two large sources of spare parts. engine parts are easy, series 1 props are rarer than hens teeth but there are only 2 new and 1 damaged in existance, hence the us plane which has been for sale for some years.
Posts: 8,846
By: Newforest - 1st October 2010 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well there's the cat among the pigeons, who would be qualified to answer?:confused:
Posts: 99
By: Moreorless - 1st October 2010 at 15:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Anyone tell us what this is - apparently still active in Brasil?
Posts: 8,846
By: Newforest - 1st October 2010 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would appear to be a B.206, s/n B.080, PT-IQH in healthy condition, but it is not on the UK register is it?! ;)
Posts: 1,453
By: Auster Fan - 2nd October 2010 at 19:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the few Beagle 206 Series 3?
Posts: 8,846
By: Newforest - 2nd October 2010 at 22:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are correct, the one and only series 3, ten seater, unless you know different? :)
Posts: 1,453
By: Auster Fan - 2nd October 2010 at 22:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Possibly, although one book I have seems to indicate that B.074 was the prototype as G-35-28, plus the only other one (B.080 - as shown), but see the list below...
http://www.beagle206x.flyer.co.uk/prod.htm
Posts: 8,846
By: Newforest - 3rd October 2010 at 09:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
PT-IQH originally G-AWLN. Interesting that the CAA registration card showed it initially as a series 2 and this was crossed out and series 3 substituted.
C-GBGL, c/n 074 went the other way, from a series 3 to a series 2 and was cancelled from the register in 1998.
Posts: 16
By: Seymour Seaward - 21st April 2011 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
G-FLYP flies!
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=108310
Posts: 1,433
By: low'n'slow - 23rd April 2011 at 07:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Great to see it back in the air again, and all credit to those who have put in the hard work to make it possible.
I and I'm sure a few others, had assumed the worst when we heard of its engine problems a few years ago. Delighted to see that you've persevered when many others would have given up.
Posts: 8,846
By: Newforest - 23rd April 2011 at 08:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, it is great news, but why do our Forum sponsors both here and in print seem to be so coy in divulging the details of problems, progress and successes? A historic machine operated by a historic publication should be more open, I think.