Forget the trucks let's have real fun aeroplanes
Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
I wish to express my interest in a new Viking DHC 1 with a modernised Gipsy Mk 10 from Hants and Sussex Engineering.
Forget the trucks let's have real fun aeroplanes
Forget the trucks let's have real fun aeroplanes
-
Old Dog Flying
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:18 pm
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
MichaelP...You can't afford to run your bicycle so how could you ever afford to even put gas in one of these...let alone buy one!
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
We are all dreamers aren't we?
There once was a time when I owned three aircraft and two vehicles... and operated a total of seven aircraft.
I flew the newest and the oldest... Who here has ever flown a Le Rhone rotary engine?
I look for inspiration to do these things again.
I built up a flying club with a fleet of aeroplanes... Reality is made from dreams.
You've just got to avoid the nightmares.
I hope Viking as well as all the forumites here fulfill their dreams in 2009.
There once was a time when I owned three aircraft and two vehicles... and operated a total of seven aircraft.
I flew the newest and the oldest... Who here has ever flown a Le Rhone rotary engine?
I look for inspiration to do these things again.
I built up a flying club with a fleet of aeroplanes... Reality is made from dreams.
You've just got to avoid the nightmares.
I hope Viking as well as all the forumites here fulfill their dreams in 2009.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Hahah the "slam check", forgot about that one. I have only heard about it third-hand, maybe someone a little closer to the front can explain it, and what happened....should raise some eyebrows.
Yeah, PW150's, I must have had a brain fart on that one. Getting away from the air system would be good for bush ops, you could then boost from any loader or whatever. Not to mention using a better APU.
They could always upgrade the front seats as well, I have yet to find a more uncomfortable seat. I feel pity for the SAR guys who sit in it ofr 6+ hours at a stretch.
Finally, if the "new" twin otter goes for what, 4 or 5 million; what do you suppose the "new" buffalo would list at? 10, 15 million? Seems out of range for most cargo operators, at least in the 18000lb/200kts scale.
Yeah, PW150's, I must have had a brain fart on that one. Getting away from the air system would be good for bush ops, you could then boost from any loader or whatever. Not to mention using a better APU.
They could always upgrade the front seats as well, I have yet to find a more uncomfortable seat. I feel pity for the SAR guys who sit in it ofr 6+ hours at a stretch.
Finally, if the "new" twin otter goes for what, 4 or 5 million; what do you suppose the "new" buffalo would list at? 10, 15 million? Seems out of range for most cargo operators, at least in the 18000lb/200kts scale.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
You get used to it. It also helps that we can stand up and stretch in the back.Donald wrote: They could always upgrade the front seats as well, I have yet to find a more uncomfortable seat. I feel pity for the SAR guys who sit in it ofr 6+ hours at a stretch.
-
linecrew
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:53 am
- Location: On final so get off the damn runway!
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
They did that once already a bunch of years back complete with a hovercraft landing gear.Human Factor wrote:youngtimer wrote: Getting back to the Buffalo, when can we expect the first float conversion!?
What they REALLy should do is get this baby into production!
SLAM TEST
SLAM TEST
a canforce procedure: once the engine is throttled up to max power the power levers are 'slammed' (pulled back very quickly) into the max reverse position.
you can imagine that the max reverse position can be selected before the engine has even spooled down and started into the beta range. the engine must get confused. this is completely opposite to the 'move-the-lever-only-as-fast-as-the-guage-needle-moves' principle that good airmanship dictates.
while many engines passed this slam test, there was at least one engine that failed this test with stories of shrapnel recovered from lawns of homes on or near CFB comox.
but, donald is onto something. many of these engines that have passed the slam test must suffer some long term effects that show up later, get blamed on something else, and don't help the reputation of an otherwise good engine. a powerplant engineered for a helicopter? yes. but those helicopters run the engine at 100%Ng continuously. the CT64 in the Buff will use 100% on take off, sure, for 5 miuntes at the most, if you need it. but cruise sends the Ng down to a relaxed 85%'ish.
yes, donald, i get goose bumps everytime i hear those military twin otter props bounce back and forth, no matter what season or temperature it is. the bad kind of goose bumps.
a canforce procedure: once the engine is throttled up to max power the power levers are 'slammed' (pulled back very quickly) into the max reverse position.
you can imagine that the max reverse position can be selected before the engine has even spooled down and started into the beta range. the engine must get confused. this is completely opposite to the 'move-the-lever-only-as-fast-as-the-guage-needle-moves' principle that good airmanship dictates.
while many engines passed this slam test, there was at least one engine that failed this test with stories of shrapnel recovered from lawns of homes on or near CFB comox.
but, donald is onto something. many of these engines that have passed the slam test must suffer some long term effects that show up later, get blamed on something else, and don't help the reputation of an otherwise good engine. a powerplant engineered for a helicopter? yes. but those helicopters run the engine at 100%Ng continuously. the CT64 in the Buff will use 100% on take off, sure, for 5 miuntes at the most, if you need it. but cruise sends the Ng down to a relaxed 85%'ish.
yes, donald, i get goose bumps everytime i hear those military twin otter props bounce back and forth, no matter what season or temperature it is. the bad kind of goose bumps.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Actually since it is a free turbine, only the rotor will be at 100%. the N1 will vary based upon the collective position.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Just to add another article to the mix:
Viking Air wonders why Ottawa wants to buy in Italy
Victoria plane builder says its plan for search-and-rescue craft saves money
Andrew A. Duffy
Times Colonist
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
CREDIT: Debra Brash, Times Colonist
Refurbishing Canada's fleet of aging Buffalo search-and-rescue aircraft would save $1.5 billion over the replacement cost.
Victoria-based Viking Air believes it can save the Canadian government $1.5 billion and put as many as 350 people to work if it can convince Ottawa it has the right plan to upgrade and modernize the country's aging fleet of Buffalo search-and-rescue aircraft.
But Viking, which manufactures the popular Twin Otter aircraft at plants in Victoria and Calgary, says the federal government doesn't appear to want to hear about it.
According to Viking president Dave Curtis, the company had been speaking with Department of National Defence operations personnel on an unofficial basis about options to replacing the CC-115 Buffalo fleet used in search-and-rescue missions.
"A week or two ago we were told, full stop, 'we'll get back to you' and the next thing we hear is a report that [Defence Minister Peter] MacKay has a $3-billion program," he said.
According to a Canwest News Service report, that $3-billion program looks to be a sole-source contract for the purchase of new search-and-rescue aircraft -- specifically an Italian C-27J aircraft built in the U.S. The deal would see $1.5 billion for aircraft and another $1.5 billion for long-term maintenance.
Staff in MacKay's office told Canwest News Service the minister hoped to buy fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft early in the new year.
Alenia Aeronautics, the Italian firm behind the C-27J Spartan, has established a website (www.c-27j.ca) as part of its lobbying effort to land the Canadian government's search-and-rescue business.
The site claims Canada's search-and-rescue fleet of CC-130 Hercules and CC-115 Buffalos are among the oldest aircraft of their type in the world and are subject to "increasing unserviceability, lack of spare parts and poor availability."
Alenia says its C-27J Spartan is the only twin-engine aircraft in the world that meets or exceeds Canadian Forces requirements for fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft.
The company also intends to establish a North American production line to deliver C-27J aircraft ordered for the U.S. Joint Cargo Aircraft program, as well as deal with other orders it may get from within Canada.
Curtis countered the Viking Air option would save money and put Canadians to work.
"We believe there is an upgrade path here that can also lead to a new production run," he said.
If the military bought into the Viking program, the company would likely be able to establish a market for Buffalo aircraft around the world, said Curtis. "Often what happens is the military acts as a seed to get bigger programs going so we can sell overseas and generate exports.
"We're not asking for anyone to give us a free ride -- we're saying this could be a great solution at probably half the cost."
Officials from the Department of National Defence did not answer several requests for an interview with the Times Colonist.
Curtis said the Viking plan would take one DND search-and-rescue aircraft, upgrade it, work out the modernization of it and use the technology developed in the process to establish a new production program that could provide the 17 aircraft the DND appears to require.
Curtis estimates the Viking plan would cut the costs by "at least half" and would require doubling Viking's 350 staff in Victoria and Calgary.
http://www.canada.com/components/print. ... b&sponsor=
What do the actual air force pilots have to say about this? Would a new Buff be a good idea? We always hear from policey makers at NDHQ and arm chair generals but what about the front end kids? I'm all for buying Canadian however buyer beware I think as no matter how much money can be saved, the stated cost is rarely the final one.
Viking Air wonders why Ottawa wants to buy in Italy
Victoria plane builder says its plan for search-and-rescue craft saves money
Andrew A. Duffy
Times Colonist
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
CREDIT: Debra Brash, Times Colonist
Refurbishing Canada's fleet of aging Buffalo search-and-rescue aircraft would save $1.5 billion over the replacement cost.
Victoria-based Viking Air believes it can save the Canadian government $1.5 billion and put as many as 350 people to work if it can convince Ottawa it has the right plan to upgrade and modernize the country's aging fleet of Buffalo search-and-rescue aircraft.
But Viking, which manufactures the popular Twin Otter aircraft at plants in Victoria and Calgary, says the federal government doesn't appear to want to hear about it.
According to Viking president Dave Curtis, the company had been speaking with Department of National Defence operations personnel on an unofficial basis about options to replacing the CC-115 Buffalo fleet used in search-and-rescue missions.
"A week or two ago we were told, full stop, 'we'll get back to you' and the next thing we hear is a report that [Defence Minister Peter] MacKay has a $3-billion program," he said.
According to a Canwest News Service report, that $3-billion program looks to be a sole-source contract for the purchase of new search-and-rescue aircraft -- specifically an Italian C-27J aircraft built in the U.S. The deal would see $1.5 billion for aircraft and another $1.5 billion for long-term maintenance.
Staff in MacKay's office told Canwest News Service the minister hoped to buy fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft early in the new year.
Alenia Aeronautics, the Italian firm behind the C-27J Spartan, has established a website (www.c-27j.ca) as part of its lobbying effort to land the Canadian government's search-and-rescue business.
The site claims Canada's search-and-rescue fleet of CC-130 Hercules and CC-115 Buffalos are among the oldest aircraft of their type in the world and are subject to "increasing unserviceability, lack of spare parts and poor availability."
Alenia says its C-27J Spartan is the only twin-engine aircraft in the world that meets or exceeds Canadian Forces requirements for fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft.
The company also intends to establish a North American production line to deliver C-27J aircraft ordered for the U.S. Joint Cargo Aircraft program, as well as deal with other orders it may get from within Canada.
Curtis countered the Viking Air option would save money and put Canadians to work.
"We believe there is an upgrade path here that can also lead to a new production run," he said.
If the military bought into the Viking program, the company would likely be able to establish a market for Buffalo aircraft around the world, said Curtis. "Often what happens is the military acts as a seed to get bigger programs going so we can sell overseas and generate exports.
"We're not asking for anyone to give us a free ride -- we're saying this could be a great solution at probably half the cost."
Officials from the Department of National Defence did not answer several requests for an interview with the Times Colonist.
Curtis said the Viking plan would take one DND search-and-rescue aircraft, upgrade it, work out the modernization of it and use the technology developed in the process to establish a new production program that could provide the 17 aircraft the DND appears to require.
Curtis estimates the Viking plan would cut the costs by "at least half" and would require doubling Viking's 350 staff in Victoria and Calgary.
http://www.canada.com/components/print. ... b&sponsor=
What do the actual air force pilots have to say about this? Would a new Buff be a good idea? We always hear from policey makers at NDHQ and arm chair generals but what about the front end kids? I'm all for buying Canadian however buyer beware I think as no matter how much money can be saved, the stated cost is rarely the final one.
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Ok here is my unofficial opinion on the matter.
Viking doesn't seem to understand that the FWSAR replacement project is aimed at replacing all of the CFs FWSAR aircraft. This includes our E/H Model Hercules. The Buffalo is ill suited to conduct SAR in the rest of Canada - mainly due to its slow speed, unpressurized fuselage and poor range.
17 new Buffalos would not cut it for Canadian FWSAR. We would need double that amount (for double the cost) and the increased infrastructure costs of establishing new FWSAR MOBs in every province.
The high paid staff in Winnipeg and Ottawa don't choose flashy airplanes because they look nice and come with the cool wheels. They make decisions based what is needed to complete the job efficiently and at the best use of the Canadian taxpayer's money.
A few notes about the Buffalo:
1) Engines are overhauled in California
2) Props go to France (or the other way around, I can't remember)
3) Landing gear is not supported and increasingly difficult to maintain
4) The square fuselage is only at its half-life, but how do you pressurize a box?
Final Note:
Never done the slam test before - but not a maintenance test pilot or maintainer. We do put the props into reverse as soon as the mains touch the ground. This is a STOL aircraft - it is designed to do that.
Viking doesn't seem to understand that the FWSAR replacement project is aimed at replacing all of the CFs FWSAR aircraft. This includes our E/H Model Hercules. The Buffalo is ill suited to conduct SAR in the rest of Canada - mainly due to its slow speed, unpressurized fuselage and poor range.
17 new Buffalos would not cut it for Canadian FWSAR. We would need double that amount (for double the cost) and the increased infrastructure costs of establishing new FWSAR MOBs in every province.
The high paid staff in Winnipeg and Ottawa don't choose flashy airplanes because they look nice and come with the cool wheels. They make decisions based what is needed to complete the job efficiently and at the best use of the Canadian taxpayer's money.
A few notes about the Buffalo:
1) Engines are overhauled in California
2) Props go to France (or the other way around, I can't remember)
3) Landing gear is not supported and increasingly difficult to maintain
4) The square fuselage is only at its half-life, but how do you pressurize a box?
Final Note:
Never done the slam test before - but not a maintenance test pilot or maintainer. We do put the props into reverse as soon as the mains touch the ground. This is a STOL aircraft - it is designed to do that.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Just curious, where does the CF operate the DHC-5 that STOL performance is required?SAR_YQQ wrote:We do put the props into reverse as soon as the mains touch the ground. This is a STOL aircraft - it is designed to do that.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
We don't use the landing portion of the STOL operationally - we use the T/O regularly.Donald wrote:Just curious, where does the CF operate the DHC-5 that STOL performance is required?
STOL is not required for FWSAR - taking off below VMca is not something to be done lightly, but is required for some of the airfields that we currently operate out of.
Note to Mods - can we clean up this post and perhaps split off the Twotter discussion into its own thread? Done. JC
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Sorry to be a pest, but which airfields require STOL departures?
On landing, when reverse is selected, is it used up to the max limit? My point being, these engines are quite susceptible to ingestion of fod, even on a paved surface. Is it really necessary to use any reverse when landing on the strips you currently operate out of?
On landing, when reverse is selected, is it used up to the max limit? My point being, these engines are quite susceptible to ingestion of fod, even on a paved surface. Is it really necessary to use any reverse when landing on the strips you currently operate out of?
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
With a SAR loaded aircraft - any airfield that is less than 5000' (at sea level) - we conduct STOL departures. If the plane is heavier than 41K LBS - we have to use standard 7 Flap T/O technique which lengthens our roll considerably.
I have taken off out of Eureka at MTOW (45K on our models) - the accelerate/stop just barely allowed us to do so.
We use max reverse as required. Once we spot a dust-ball - we push the power levers back forward. No problems with FOD really - the intakes are well over 8' off the ground.
I have taken off out of Eureka at MTOW (45K on our models) - the accelerate/stop just barely allowed us to do so.
We use max reverse as required. Once we spot a dust-ball - we push the power levers back forward. No problems with FOD really - the intakes are well over 8' off the ground.
-
Double Wasp
- Rank 3
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:08 am
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Hey SAR,
I seem to remember the charts saying that I was good for a MTOW up to around 3300 feet. We were running in the arctic however. Once the temps got above 23 degrees or so it started to reduce the payload considerably and above 27 even 5000 feet was tough. I was using a "D" model however with a MTOW of 49200 and 7 flap was all that was authorized. Are you talking a full flap 30 STOL or using flap 12 instead. Its just 5000 feet seems a little long for STOL work.
I do agree that the Buffalo has probably seen its day. It is a great aircraft that can do some amazing stuff but there just isn't enough demand for an unpressurized cargo hauler for them to start building one new.
The Slam test is no longer done as far as I know, I was told that once the engine manufactuer found out what was happening it was stopped forth with. I have heard that the overtorque bugs have to be reset very regularly though, as it is a goal for max torque on every take off ( I am talking mil here). I am not saying I never overtorqued one but whenever I did, and it was not very often, I had to have a damn good explanation why. We generally used a reduced setting power if the conditions allowed, ie not at max weight, greater runway length available than required etc. We also set a power setting that would account for the torque rise during the takeoff roll.
How is a normal take off done in the military?
If I am wrong on any of the above please correct. I promise I won't be insulted.
DW
I seem to remember the charts saying that I was good for a MTOW up to around 3300 feet. We were running in the arctic however. Once the temps got above 23 degrees or so it started to reduce the payload considerably and above 27 even 5000 feet was tough. I was using a "D" model however with a MTOW of 49200 and 7 flap was all that was authorized. Are you talking a full flap 30 STOL or using flap 12 instead. Its just 5000 feet seems a little long for STOL work.
I do agree that the Buffalo has probably seen its day. It is a great aircraft that can do some amazing stuff but there just isn't enough demand for an unpressurized cargo hauler for them to start building one new.
The Slam test is no longer done as far as I know, I was told that once the engine manufactuer found out what was happening it was stopped forth with. I have heard that the overtorque bugs have to be reset very regularly though, as it is a goal for max torque on every take off ( I am talking mil here). I am not saying I never overtorqued one but whenever I did, and it was not very often, I had to have a damn good explanation why. We generally used a reduced setting power if the conditions allowed, ie not at max weight, greater runway length available than required etc. We also set a power setting that would account for the torque rise during the takeoff roll.
How is a normal take off done in the military?
If I am wrong on any of the above please correct. I promise I won't be insulted.
DW
When it stops leakin oil then you worry.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Hey DW - nice to talk to another -5 driver.
The A models that we drive have quite the different numbers than what I guess you have/had. MTOW for us is 45K - and we don't do that very often. I got in $hit on my upgrade ride departing Yellowknife on the shorter runway w/o checking out the accelerate/stop. When I did check it - we were close, but still legal.
We also do STOl departures for obstacle clearance in the vicinity of the airport (talking BC here, not Arctic).
The only time I have driven the old girl up North has been in July/august time frame on Ellesmere - so it wasn't cold but not too hot either.
We have two types of T/O - normal (7 degrees flap) and STOL (30 degrees). We can flapless, 7, 17, 30, 40 and STOL.
We always set T/O torque to whatever our engineer briefs - he refers to our outside temp and the AAE.
The A models that we drive have quite the different numbers than what I guess you have/had. MTOW for us is 45K - and we don't do that very often. I got in $hit on my upgrade ride departing Yellowknife on the shorter runway w/o checking out the accelerate/stop. When I did check it - we were close, but still legal.
We also do STOl departures for obstacle clearance in the vicinity of the airport (talking BC here, not Arctic).
The only time I have driven the old girl up North has been in July/august time frame on Ellesmere - so it wasn't cold but not too hot either.
We have two types of T/O - normal (7 degrees flap) and STOL (30 degrees). We can flapless, 7, 17, 30, 40 and STOL.
We always set T/O torque to whatever our engineer briefs - he refers to our outside temp and the AAE.
-
Panama Jack
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3263
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
- Location: Back here
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
It will be interesting to see how Viking does business-wise in the long run. How many of it's new Twin Otters does it have firm orders for yet?
I wonder about the viability of resurrecting and old lady and dressing her in the latest fashions. My bets are that the Viking Buffalo would not be an economic success. I know of another company in the US that owns the Type Certificate for the Grumman Goose and is planning to manufacture these birds again too. Again, same basic design, but with turbine engines and if I remember correctly, steam-driven instruments. I ponder how much of a serious market there is for these types, other than from nostalgia buffs.
It will be interesting to watch as the Chinese sort out their quality issues and get into the aircraft manufacturing market. I predict that within 30 years if not earlier they will be giving the incumbants a serious run for the money.
I wonder about the viability of resurrecting and old lady and dressing her in the latest fashions. My bets are that the Viking Buffalo would not be an economic success. I know of another company in the US that owns the Type Certificate for the Grumman Goose and is planning to manufacture these birds again too. Again, same basic design, but with turbine engines and if I remember correctly, steam-driven instruments. I ponder how much of a serious market there is for these types, other than from nostalgia buffs.
It will be interesting to watch as the Chinese sort out their quality issues and get into the aircraft manufacturing market. I predict that within 30 years if not earlier they will be giving the incumbants a serious run for the money.
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
-President Ronald Reagan
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Letter to the Editor from Viking Air of Victoria, B.C.
Canadian Forces DHC-5 Buffalo on ramp at Viking
Recent reports have suggested that the Canadian Government intends to spend 3 billion dollars for up to 17 new FWSAR aircraft to replace its aging CC-115 Buffalo fleet, which has long been utilized in search-and- rescue missions across the country. I am writing on behalf of Viking Air of Victoria BC, which holds the design and in-service support certificate for the CC-115, to remind the Canadian Government that there is an effective, economical, and Canadian solution for this replacement issue: a modernized CC-115 variant.
Viking is prepared to work with the DND to develop a staged approach to upgrading and modernizing the current fleet, as well as investigate the potential of introducing newly manufactured Buffalos on a phased-in basis as follows:
upgrade existing General Electric engines to Canadian PW150 turbines, a proven, reliable and fuel efficient engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney Canada;
introduce a modern integrated avionics and technology enhancement package with Synthetic View, FLIR and NVG capabilities similar to that currently being installed in the new Viking Series 400 Twin Otters;
re-start production of a modernized Buffalo at our manufacturing facilities in Calgary and Victoria, similar to the revitalized DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400 program underway at Viking, which leveraged the engineering, research and development on the original de Havilland airframe and marries it with the improvements offered by modern technology engines, systems and avionics to create a commercial and military modern day success story.
Viking has already received serious interest from several governmental agencies around the world and is cognizant of the growing demand for the launch of new production DHC-5 Buffalo aircraft. By upgrading and modernizing the fleet and incorporating new build Buffalo aircraft, manufactured and supported in Canada, the cost savings over introduction of a completely new type is huge.
The requirement to replace the present fleet is not based on a lack of ability for the Buffalo to do the job, but simply due to the aging of the aircraft. By breeding new life into the Program, the DND can continue to operate the best suited aircraft, safely, reliably, and with a huge reduction in acquisition and direct operating costs. The Buffalo is the best suited aircraft for its purpose, as noted on the Canadian National Defence website:
“The ‘Buff’ is able to fly in almost any weather, and into places other aircraft are incapable of reaching, making it ideal for the mountainous regions of British Columbia.”
By continuing with the tradition of the Buffalo, Canadian taxpayers will receive a proven low-risk product with huge economic benefits and cost savings, thus allowing the DND to either acquire more aircraft for search and rescue or reallocate the funds to other projects within DND. Not to mention the continuing benefits of keeping the program Canadian and further diversifying the Western Aerospace Industry.
We would welcome the chance to further discuss the merits of this proposal with you and we encourage you to speak to Defence Minister Peter MacKay regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
David Curtis
President & CEO
Canadian Forces DHC-5 Buffalo on ramp at Viking
Recent reports have suggested that the Canadian Government intends to spend 3 billion dollars for up to 17 new FWSAR aircraft to replace its aging CC-115 Buffalo fleet, which has long been utilized in search-and- rescue missions across the country. I am writing on behalf of Viking Air of Victoria BC, which holds the design and in-service support certificate for the CC-115, to remind the Canadian Government that there is an effective, economical, and Canadian solution for this replacement issue: a modernized CC-115 variant.
Viking is prepared to work with the DND to develop a staged approach to upgrading and modernizing the current fleet, as well as investigate the potential of introducing newly manufactured Buffalos on a phased-in basis as follows:
upgrade existing General Electric engines to Canadian PW150 turbines, a proven, reliable and fuel efficient engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney Canada;
introduce a modern integrated avionics and technology enhancement package with Synthetic View, FLIR and NVG capabilities similar to that currently being installed in the new Viking Series 400 Twin Otters;
re-start production of a modernized Buffalo at our manufacturing facilities in Calgary and Victoria, similar to the revitalized DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400 program underway at Viking, which leveraged the engineering, research and development on the original de Havilland airframe and marries it with the improvements offered by modern technology engines, systems and avionics to create a commercial and military modern day success story.
Viking has already received serious interest from several governmental agencies around the world and is cognizant of the growing demand for the launch of new production DHC-5 Buffalo aircraft. By upgrading and modernizing the fleet and incorporating new build Buffalo aircraft, manufactured and supported in Canada, the cost savings over introduction of a completely new type is huge.
The requirement to replace the present fleet is not based on a lack of ability for the Buffalo to do the job, but simply due to the aging of the aircraft. By breeding new life into the Program, the DND can continue to operate the best suited aircraft, safely, reliably, and with a huge reduction in acquisition and direct operating costs. The Buffalo is the best suited aircraft for its purpose, as noted on the Canadian National Defence website:
“The ‘Buff’ is able to fly in almost any weather, and into places other aircraft are incapable of reaching, making it ideal for the mountainous regions of British Columbia.”
By continuing with the tradition of the Buffalo, Canadian taxpayers will receive a proven low-risk product with huge economic benefits and cost savings, thus allowing the DND to either acquire more aircraft for search and rescue or reallocate the funds to other projects within DND. Not to mention the continuing benefits of keeping the program Canadian and further diversifying the Western Aerospace Industry.
We would welcome the chance to further discuss the merits of this proposal with you and we encourage you to speak to Defence Minister Peter MacKay regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
David Curtis
President & CEO
You Can Love An Airplane All You Want, But Remember, It Will Never Love You Back!
-
kevinsky18
- Rank 5
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:01 am
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Spend our money / tax dollars on Canadian planes, made in Canada and built by Canadians.
Plusses:
Keeps 3 billion in Canada.
Helps a good Canadian company stay afloat.
Helps company develop new and better products and become a leading competitor able to supply even better products in the future
Gives Canadians Jobs, training and higher skill sets/
Establishes a company that then generates a good product for export. Which in turn brings in cash from other countries which then translates into more jobs for Canadians.
Negatives:
We may have to work hard to get said product up and running. (oh no heaven forbid)
The Herc needs to be upgraded too. (Fine either order just the hercs or even better yet build a herc variant as well)
One company may not be able to supply all the aircraft we need. (anyone heard of Bombardier?)
The cost of building a new Herc variant would be too costly. (The technology and design are dirt simple. The cost comes from endless TC red tape. Solution TC needs a serious revamp)
Or Give another country our 3 billion dollars.
Plusses:
It’s easier, no headaches, let them worry about building the planes
maybe a bit faster (because you know after 30 yrs of flying these planes we can’t possibly wait an extra 6-12 months for a Canadian company to ramp up production .
Gives our unemployed workers more time to relax, lay on the beach, soak up the sun.
Make the other countries happy knowing they got a shmuck friend like Canada that will just give them money so they’ll be friends with us.
Prop up their economy
Put their people to work,
Build up their companies and skilled workers so they have an even more competitive advantage over our Canadian companies and can continue to out bid us in the future.
Negatives:
Difficulties in hiding all the kick backs from these foreign companies.
Trying to deflect any comparison between current government and the imbeciles that sold out the Avro Aero fighter.
Plusses:
Keeps 3 billion in Canada.
Helps a good Canadian company stay afloat.
Helps company develop new and better products and become a leading competitor able to supply even better products in the future
Gives Canadians Jobs, training and higher skill sets/
Establishes a company that then generates a good product for export. Which in turn brings in cash from other countries which then translates into more jobs for Canadians.
Negatives:
We may have to work hard to get said product up and running. (oh no heaven forbid)
The Herc needs to be upgraded too. (Fine either order just the hercs or even better yet build a herc variant as well)
One company may not be able to supply all the aircraft we need. (anyone heard of Bombardier?)
The cost of building a new Herc variant would be too costly. (The technology and design are dirt simple. The cost comes from endless TC red tape. Solution TC needs a serious revamp)
Or Give another country our 3 billion dollars.
Plusses:
It’s easier, no headaches, let them worry about building the planes
maybe a bit faster (because you know after 30 yrs of flying these planes we can’t possibly wait an extra 6-12 months for a Canadian company to ramp up production .
Gives our unemployed workers more time to relax, lay on the beach, soak up the sun.
Make the other countries happy knowing they got a shmuck friend like Canada that will just give them money so they’ll be friends with us.
Prop up their economy
Put their people to work,
Build up their companies and skilled workers so they have an even more competitive advantage over our Canadian companies and can continue to out bid us in the future.
Negatives:
Difficulties in hiding all the kick backs from these foreign companies.
Trying to deflect any comparison between current government and the imbeciles that sold out the Avro Aero fighter.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
As said before, the Buffalo is too slow, getting too cramped, not pressurized, and is too dated. I doubt that a new build Buffalo would be a major success (or even break even for Viking Air), so we would again end up with strategic orphans...
I would rate their proposal to be high risk, non-compliant, with a very likely chance of a major cost overrun or a delay. At least with the C-27J and C-295, the aircraft is in service and all that is needed is minor modifications. Their proposal, as mentioned earlier is also MORE expensive in the long run; we can't cover all of Canada with only 17 Buffalo's and 4-5 SAR bases. We would need at least double that, plus we would need to open at least another 6-7 bases to effectively cover all of Canada. I had said the same thing about EADS-CASA's proposal with their C-295; their aircraft is slower, but they openly suggested that we buy more airplanes and open more bases because their airplane is cheaper. It would cost more in terms of infrastructure, support, and personnel, all of which we do not have enough of, or enough funding. Viking is either essentially doing the same thing, but in undertones, or they are just ignorant because not only are we replacing the Buffalo's, we are replacing the C-130E/H's tasked to SAR.
I would rate their proposal to be high risk, non-compliant, with a very likely chance of a major cost overrun or a delay. At least with the C-27J and C-295, the aircraft is in service and all that is needed is minor modifications. Their proposal, as mentioned earlier is also MORE expensive in the long run; we can't cover all of Canada with only 17 Buffalo's and 4-5 SAR bases. We would need at least double that, plus we would need to open at least another 6-7 bases to effectively cover all of Canada. I had said the same thing about EADS-CASA's proposal with their C-295; their aircraft is slower, but they openly suggested that we buy more airplanes and open more bases because their airplane is cheaper. It would cost more in terms of infrastructure, support, and personnel, all of which we do not have enough of, or enough funding. Viking is either essentially doing the same thing, but in undertones, or they are just ignorant because not only are we replacing the Buffalo's, we are replacing the C-130E/H's tasked to SAR.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
In an email from Mr. Curtis - he told me that they would not be pressurizing their new variant of the Buffalo.
<EDIT - In all fairness to Mr. Curtis and Viking Air, I will refrain from comparing his company to Allenia. This is his direct quote and it should stand on its own merits>
"At the considerably reduced cost of new Buffalo's vs. C27J's you could place assets where they need to be rather than pay a huge premium in order to get there fast in a complicated pressurized aircraft. When actually performing SAR duties, low and slow is the preferred envelope and where the Buff thrives."
OR.......
We could replace our existing fleet of FWSAR within their current established MOBs and SRRs with an aircraft that meets all the required criteria. Out of the box thinking, I know.
For those who want the made-in-Canada solution for economical reasons - all deals require that the company invest dollar for dollar back into the Canadian economy. So $3BCAD spent on aircraft and maintenance is still $3BCAD into Canada's economy.
<EDIT - In all fairness to Mr. Curtis and Viking Air, I will refrain from comparing his company to Allenia. This is his direct quote and it should stand on its own merits>
"At the considerably reduced cost of new Buffalo's vs. C27J's you could place assets where they need to be rather than pay a huge premium in order to get there fast in a complicated pressurized aircraft. When actually performing SAR duties, low and slow is the preferred envelope and where the Buff thrives."
OR.......
We could replace our existing fleet of FWSAR within their current established MOBs and SRRs with an aircraft that meets all the required criteria. Out of the box thinking, I know.
For those who want the made-in-Canada solution for economical reasons - all deals require that the company invest dollar for dollar back into the Canadian economy. So $3BCAD spent on aircraft and maintenance is still $3BCAD into Canada's economy.
Last edited by SAR_YQQ on Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Probably a good idea to listen to the military on this one.
-
godsrcrazy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 847
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:12 pm
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
I must say there are some very valid points to this article. Maybe there should be some aircraft based in the north.
Hole in the sky
Chief coroner says North needs more air search and rescue capabilities
Northern News Services
Yellowknife (Feb 17/03) - The year 2001 was not a good one for Northern aviation -- at least when it comes to plane crashes.
With three fatal air accidents occurring that year, the NWT surpassed Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and all of the Atlantic provinces combined in the number of crashes where people died. There were twice as many fatal accidents in the much more populous provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Eight people died in NWT crashes that year, just one less than in Ontario.
Some may call it an anomaly, but rarely does a year go by in the NWT without more heartache and grief as another plane -- usually a small commuter aircraft -- goes down.
Out of the number of accidents reported in Canada over the last 10 years, the NWT (including Nunavut, 1992 to 1999) ranks seventh among all provinces and territories.
Averaging about 138,000 flights a year, with an ever-increasing number of trips to and from mines, exploration camps and communities separated by a lack of roads and highways, NWT airspace is some of the busiest in the country.
"If they stationed a search-and-rescue team here in the North somewhere, I don't care if it be Yellowknife or Whitehorse, at least it would be here," says Clell Crook Sr. "I think it would make a big difference."
Crook is the father of Kole Crook, the well-known fiddle player who died when the Cessna 172 he was flying in crashed New Year's Eve 2001 en route to Tulita from Fort Good Hope.
All four people on board the plane, including the pilot, perished in the crash. Although it was believed Kole Crook was killed upon impact, the three others didn't.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada found that the pilot, Dana Wentzel, and the two other passengers, Ashley and Lindsay Andrew of Tulita, didn't die from their injuries but rather from hypothermia.
It took 40 hours for an air search-and-rescue team to reach the downed craft -- first, a Hercules sent from Winnipeg with parachute jumpers on board, followed by a Griffin helicopter out of Cold Lake, Alta.
No longer talking about rescue
Percy Kinney, chief coroner of the NWT, says the time it takes for search-and-rescue aircraft to reach the North from Winnipeg is troubling. Winnipeg is the main base for Canadian Forces Search and Rescue (SAR) serving the Prairies and the North.
Two issues likely to be raised at a public inquest expected this summer into the Tulita crash are the availability of search-and-rescue aircraft and the reliability of emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) on board small airplanes.
"You're looking at a six- to eight-hour time lag in getting here," says Kinney. "If you're taking eight hours to get here to do search and rescue in the North during the winter time you're not doing search and rescue, you're doing search and recovery."
There are four Canadian Forces Twin Otters stationed in Yellowknife, but they mainly serve as secondary support for SAR. They are not equipped for rescuers to parachute from into a crash site.
"We should be looking at ways to beef that up, and that might be by using more local resources, and beefing up what DND (Department of Defence) resources we have locally so that they can become at least an early-on search and resource until such a time when those resources get here," says Kinney.
Can't see without an ELT
ELTs are also a problem, says Kinney. The standard ELT found on most small aircraft in the North operates at 121.5 megahertz, an international distress frequency.
After a plane crash that occurred near Fort Liard in Oct., 2001, search-and-rescue craft initially had difficulty locating the crash site, even though it was less than two kilometres from the community.
The Transportation Safety Board thought magnetic interference may have caused the problem. Kinney believes making the usage of the more stable 406 megahertz ELTs -- fitted to the plane's global positioning system -- mandatory may help.
"Part of the reason it took so long is you had RCMP in a civilian helicopter with a handheld locator to try and find them," says Kinney. "DND comes up here with their Hercs, and bang -- they got it in no time, because they have the gear, but the gear is eight hours away."
Major Grant MacDonald has flown over 100 missions in his time with SAR. He says there's no worse feeling than when a search turns out badly.
He recalls one time while on a search for a missing pilot in B.C. he was approached by the pilot's mother, who implored him to continue searching for him after nine fruitless days.
"It's kind of sad," says MacDonald. "She reminded me of my own mother. She said she hoped she could convince me to keep looking, and I had to very patiently and carefully explain to her why we wouldn't continue looking.
"That wasn't very pleasant, and doesn't make you feel like having your dinner afterwards, I can tell you that."
Hole in the sky
Chief coroner says North needs more air search and rescue capabilities
Northern News Services
Yellowknife (Feb 17/03) - The year 2001 was not a good one for Northern aviation -- at least when it comes to plane crashes.
With three fatal air accidents occurring that year, the NWT surpassed Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and all of the Atlantic provinces combined in the number of crashes where people died. There were twice as many fatal accidents in the much more populous provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Eight people died in NWT crashes that year, just one less than in Ontario.
Some may call it an anomaly, but rarely does a year go by in the NWT without more heartache and grief as another plane -- usually a small commuter aircraft -- goes down.
Out of the number of accidents reported in Canada over the last 10 years, the NWT (including Nunavut, 1992 to 1999) ranks seventh among all provinces and territories.
Averaging about 138,000 flights a year, with an ever-increasing number of trips to and from mines, exploration camps and communities separated by a lack of roads and highways, NWT airspace is some of the busiest in the country.
"If they stationed a search-and-rescue team here in the North somewhere, I don't care if it be Yellowknife or Whitehorse, at least it would be here," says Clell Crook Sr. "I think it would make a big difference."
Crook is the father of Kole Crook, the well-known fiddle player who died when the Cessna 172 he was flying in crashed New Year's Eve 2001 en route to Tulita from Fort Good Hope.
All four people on board the plane, including the pilot, perished in the crash. Although it was believed Kole Crook was killed upon impact, the three others didn't.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada found that the pilot, Dana Wentzel, and the two other passengers, Ashley and Lindsay Andrew of Tulita, didn't die from their injuries but rather from hypothermia.
It took 40 hours for an air search-and-rescue team to reach the downed craft -- first, a Hercules sent from Winnipeg with parachute jumpers on board, followed by a Griffin helicopter out of Cold Lake, Alta.
No longer talking about rescue
Percy Kinney, chief coroner of the NWT, says the time it takes for search-and-rescue aircraft to reach the North from Winnipeg is troubling. Winnipeg is the main base for Canadian Forces Search and Rescue (SAR) serving the Prairies and the North.
Two issues likely to be raised at a public inquest expected this summer into the Tulita crash are the availability of search-and-rescue aircraft and the reliability of emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) on board small airplanes.
"You're looking at a six- to eight-hour time lag in getting here," says Kinney. "If you're taking eight hours to get here to do search and rescue in the North during the winter time you're not doing search and rescue, you're doing search and recovery."
There are four Canadian Forces Twin Otters stationed in Yellowknife, but they mainly serve as secondary support for SAR. They are not equipped for rescuers to parachute from into a crash site.
"We should be looking at ways to beef that up, and that might be by using more local resources, and beefing up what DND (Department of Defence) resources we have locally so that they can become at least an early-on search and resource until such a time when those resources get here," says Kinney.
Can't see without an ELT
ELTs are also a problem, says Kinney. The standard ELT found on most small aircraft in the North operates at 121.5 megahertz, an international distress frequency.
After a plane crash that occurred near Fort Liard in Oct., 2001, search-and-rescue craft initially had difficulty locating the crash site, even though it was less than two kilometres from the community.
The Transportation Safety Board thought magnetic interference may have caused the problem. Kinney believes making the usage of the more stable 406 megahertz ELTs -- fitted to the plane's global positioning system -- mandatory may help.
"Part of the reason it took so long is you had RCMP in a civilian helicopter with a handheld locator to try and find them," says Kinney. "DND comes up here with their Hercs, and bang -- they got it in no time, because they have the gear, but the gear is eight hours away."
Major Grant MacDonald has flown over 100 missions in his time with SAR. He says there's no worse feeling than when a search turns out badly.
He recalls one time while on a search for a missing pilot in B.C. he was approached by the pilot's mother, who implored him to continue searching for him after nine fruitless days.
"It's kind of sad," says MacDonald. "She reminded me of my own mother. She said she hoped she could convince me to keep looking, and I had to very patiently and carefully explain to her why we wouldn't continue looking.
"That wasn't very pleasant, and doesn't make you feel like having your dinner afterwards, I can tell you that."
Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
Full page colour ad by viking in the G&M page A9 today pushing this.
G
G
