DHC-4 Caribou

Moose47 · Post by **Moose47** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:05 pm

>>>>Post subject: Re: DHC-4 CaribouPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:55 pm

Rank 4

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:48 pm
Posts: 231 As far as I know, the Australian Air force is quite happy with their Caribou's with no replacement due for now.

Count on 3800 feet of runway for an empty C-130, maybe slightly less.>>>>

Oh really? Maybe with both pilots on the breaks. I was doing some Some S&R training with 424 Squadron recently and we did a short field take off with eight onboard. Tiger 324, an 'E' model was off the ground in less than 2,000 feet. We landed were completely stopped in 2,300 feet. To clear a 50 foot obstacle on take-off, the 'E' model needs around 5,800 feet and that's at all up weight too!!!

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:42 pm

Moose47 wrote: Oh really? Maybe with both pilots on the breaks. I was doing some Some S&R training with 424 Squadron recently and we did a short field take off with eight onboard. Tiger 324, an 'E' model was off the ground in less than 2,000 feet. We landed were completely stopped in 2,300 feet. To clear a 50 foot obstacle on take-off, the 'E' model needs around 5,800 feet and that's at all up weight too!!!

Just curious, was the "S&R" technique to taxi into position, set METO power with the brakes on, then release the brakes and go?

Also, is landing technique to plant it and immediately apply max braking and max allowable reverse until stopped?

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:14 pm

FWIW...I landed at Little Corwallis Island in a Herc to drop off a Cat. The Herc was from Alaska. NWT and PWA wouldn't do it. Curios to know how short that strip is.

jetsam · Post by **jetsam** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:42 am

4000 ft

Liquid Charlie · Post by **Liquid Charlie** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:30 am

We were in and out of LCI with the Herc regularly -- I don't think it was a matter that they wouldn't go in -- likely no airplanes available --

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:05 pm

Like Most DHC products it kick's the crap out of the herc when it comes to STOL performance. I talked with these guys the other day, they sold their demo, and have a few more in conversion. I think if they leased one to the RAAF they would sell conversion kits for all the other birds in short order.

Take-off (flaps 25º, both engines at T.O. power)
Ground Run 800 ft
Total distance to clear 50-ft. obstacle 1300 ft

Landing (Flaps 40º)
Ground Run 425 ft
Total distance from 50-ft. obstacle 945 ft

http://penturbo.com/html/PART8.pdf

Moose47 · Post by **Moose47** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:58 am

<<<<Just curious, was the "S&R" technique to taxi into position, set METO power with the brakes on, then release the brakes and go? Also, is landing technique to plant it and immediately apply max braking and max allowable reverse until stopped? <<<

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Bleeds off / take-off with 50 degrees of flap.

Reverse and braking upon touch down either until full stop or at a safe taxi speed.

In Viet Nam, it was not uncommon for C-130 pilots to throw the props in reverse 30 feet above the ground just before touch down on short landing strips.

Cheers...Chris

jetsam · Post by **jetsam** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:12 pm

[quote

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Bleeds off / take-off with 50 degrees of flap.

[/quote]

50 percent, not degrees!

Moose47 · Post by **Moose47** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:11 pm

<<<[/quote]

50 percent, not degrees! >>

Absolutely correct. I was listening to the Weather Network while typing my response )-:

Cheers...Chris

Blakey · Post by **Blakey** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:46 pm

Moose47 wrote:<<<<Just curious, was the "S&R" technique to taxi into position, set METO power with the brakes on, then release the brakes and go? Also, is landing technique to plant it and immediately apply max braking and max allowable reverse until stopped? <<<

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Bleeds off / take-off with 50 degrees of flap.

Reverse and braking upon touch down either until full stop or at a safe taxi speed.

In Viet Nam, it was not uncommon for C-130 pilots to throw the props in reverse 30 feet above the ground just before touch down on short landing strips.

Cheers...Chris

Why bleeds off? With the -15s you'll getting limiting torque right up to 25 degrees or more.

200MSD · Post by **200MSD** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:17 am

C-130 numbers:

I don't have the charts at home with me but 3800' for an empty C-130 sounds like policy over capability.

Typical CFL for AUW of 130 000 lbs (49 000 lbs of useful load) are in the 2500' range on an ISA day. The actual take-off run would be less than 1500'. If policy allows one to disregard VMCA and operate the C-130 the way Lockheed designed it, take-off run would be down around 1000'.

I have no idea on Caribou numbers and don't feel inferior as a person or pilot if they are in fact much lower than these. My WAG is smaller plane, shorter run... (nothing beats an ultralight unless you actually want to move something)

Disclaimer: no idea on civilian C-130 rules and regs; one CF dude with 2500hrs C-130 time.

W5 · Post by W5 » Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:51 am

Not sure if it has been posted already:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f0_1222965436

302sc · Post by **302sc** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:37 pm

to foghorn

the R2000 with keep going fine with 100LL without a hitch and if maintained well will do its work without problems I have flown the last three season bombing fires on a -4 and all kept running,
goes to say keep babying them and they will keep humming.

jetsam · Post by **jetsam** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:35 pm

302sc wrote: I have flown the last three season bombing fires on a -4

Where -4`s are fire bombing? in Spain?

pelmet · Post by **pelmet** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:01 am

Count on 3800 feet or slightly less runway required for a civilian Herc legal runway requirement. And that is with an empty aircraft.

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Coudn't be bothered to read the whole thread... but I saw a piston Caribou doing trips this summer for about a week in Papua. Also, I believe it is now for sale.

I was gonna go ask if I could go for a rip when they were buzzing around doing what I'm guessing were Mx. flights, but then I saw the crew.

200MSD · Post by **200MSD** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:56 pm

Some of my previous numbers were a bit overstated...(never speak without the charts I guess)

Recent take-off at 5C, no wind, 3580' dirt/broken concrete runway, 136 000 lbs was VERY close to my legal minimum.

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:04 pm

Liquid Charlie wrote:
A death trap??? Can you please explain as I've never heard of anything wrong about that aircraft?

And I have never heard anything "right" about that aircraft -- R-2000 -- worst radial engine ever made -- wheels falling off -- fires -- brake fires -- name it and it will go wrong (Ptarmigan tried to operate one) -- was not one of DH's winning airplanes for sure -- oh ya -- won't maintain on one engine --

So you've flown one have you?? R2000's in that installation are prone to exhaust problems, the aircraft will maintain on one engine, if you baby them as with any radial, they are not necessarily worse than other of the double row ilk.

pelmet · Post by **pelmet** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:58 am

Count on approximately 3800 feet required for a civilian C-130 when empty. Remember, you have to be able to accelerate to V1, reject the takeoff and stop within the confines of the runway without using reverse.

302sc · Post by **302sc** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:23 am

jetsam wrote:
302sc wrote: I have flown the last three season bombing fires on a -4
Where -4`s are fire bombing? in Spain?

NWT, based in hay river at the start of summer season covering basically covering the Mckenzie valley