Question for Wasaya Guys

[Doc]

Regarding the Hawker with the collapsed nose gear in Kenora.
I've heard the engines are being sent to New Zealand for a look see? Is this true?
The cost of running these things has just got to be outrunning the profit margin?
Ouch!

[iflyforpie]

New Zealand? Weren't these engines built by a couple of blokes in a shed in Derby 70 years ago out of spare oil heater parts?

[747-875]

Most likely true. I know Air North has been sending all their Darts from the '748s to Christchurch lately, it's about the only place left in the world to get a good Dart overhaul.

[2.5milefinal]

Ya but they are really good airplanes tho...and fun to fly

[Doc]

Agreed. They are fun to fly. There just can't be much profit in it any more n

[GyvAir]

Just thinking out loud here... are the remaining airframes good enough, plentiful enough and have enough mission demand that someone could do a Basler style engine upgrade for the 748 - and make it pay? Using something from the PW100 series for instance.

[Doc]

Just thinking out loud here... are the remaining airframes good enough, plentiful enough and have enough mission demand that someone could do a Basler style engine upgrade for the 748 - and make it pay? Using something from the PW100 series for instance.

Way too much involved. WAY more cost effective to retire the airframe and buy ATRs or what have you.

[Doc]

Or (like they'd listen to me, right!) sub charter your freight work. To who? The guys operating the BT67s right in their own backyard. Or, use the their Caravans....smaller loads more often. Think training costs, acquisition costs, ground support.....a financial race to the bottom. Use the fleet you have.

[GyvAir]

One of those situations where the only reason they've been viable this long is that they were depreciated and payed for decades ago and maintained using a dwindling stock of scavenged and NOS parts?
I found it surprising that there is as much market for the Basler as there has been. I guess the main reason it succeeds is that there is no modern replacement that will do what it will do as a large tail wheel aircraft.

[fish4life]

I think the basler has it's place for sure but I don't know if it's the most cost effective / right airplane to haul freight from airport to airport isn't the intention of those to work in the off airport environment ?

[Doc]

I think the basler has it's place for sure but I don't know if it's the most cost effective / right airplane to haul freight from airport to airport isn't the intention of those to work in the off airport environment ?

The Basler can't run freight from airport to airport? Why? Don't know the fuel burn on a Basler, but I'm guessing around 900 pounds an hour? The Hawker is 2200 for the first hour....most of Wasaya's flights are under an hour. The Basler carries what? 8500 pounds? The Hawker carries 10-11000? That's well under half the fuel burn for probably 85% of the load capability? Give or take. Acquisition cost has to be less than half that of an ATR? Simple math. Get the Basler.

[Kabloona]

Im not sure the Basler stacks up that well against the ATR 42 for strip to strip work. The 42 would be an honest 11,000 lbs to most places they fly for similar or less up front costs with the added benefit of going higher, faster and less burn. I don't know much about the Basler though.

[whiteguy]

Or (like they'd listen to me, right!) sub charter your freight work. To who? The guys operating the BT67s right in their own backyard. Or, use the their Caravans....smaller loads more often. Think training costs, acquisition costs, ground support.....a financial race to the bottom. Use the fleet you have.

Anyone else see the irony in this?

[fish4life]

That's exactly it you could load and ATR quicker since roller floors can be in and you don't have to go uphill on the whole load. Also your acquisition cost on a used 42 freighter is probably less than a basler with more load carrying and probably less fuel burn per mile since it's so much faster which also allows more trips per day thus reducing the cost further. Don't get me wrong the basler is a wicked airplane but fed ex would use them over ATR's if they were so good

[Doc]

Fed-Ex doesn't use the Basler because there just aren't enough airframes. You have to start with a DC3 in fairly good shape. The ATR is still in production. I'm sure there are other reasons.....but this has to be a big one.

[CGZMT]

Hawkers still have there place. Being the Pitot heat and flap operator, I have seen some ugly loads. 13.5 for most loads. The large door on the back helps alot being able to swing 16-22ft lumber in. Seems the basler is great for hauling fuel with the angle of the belly. Not positive on the basler useful load though. Roller floors are great, but rumor has it, with big door conversion on the ATR or DASH with rollers cuts into the load too much to be feasible.

[JMACK]

Now if Viking ever produces or refirbs the Buff well the GTW was 49200 DHC-5D18000lbs on the floor I think max fuel was in the 9000lb range and it can go any where.


BUFF BUFF BUFF...................GO VIKING!!

[Doc]

Me seems to remember a civilian version of the Buffalo. A Transporter, I think it was called. Very low TBO. Other than that, I have no idea why it didn't sell
To cgzmt, I've got a fair chunk of 748 time, and I don't recall a load anywhere near 13.5...anybody else?

[Donald]

Me seems to remember a civilian version of the Buffalo.

Yup. Called a DHC-5A (5D spec)

[Doc]

Me seems to remember a civilian version of the Buffalo.

Yup. Called a DHC-5A (5D spec)

Now that, would get 'er done! I love that thing! Any idea what they were using for engines? I seem to remember GE?

[Donald]

GE CT-64 if I remember correctly, with a substantially higher TBO than our military, due to lack of "throttle-jockeying".

Takeoff 49,200 lbs , land 46,900 lbs, 18,000 lbs cargo, EOW around 25,000 lbs

Edit to add: this already great plane would be even better with Pratt's on it, air driven starters are not something you want when operating in remote places, not to mention the increased hp/lower fuel burn.

[fish4life]

See that would be a perfect airplane dump the door down push freight out the back taxi ahead push out more freight and boom 10 minute unload times

[longjon]

With Rob Mauracher as president you might see a STC on the Buff. Re engined with PW 100s.
This is all speculation. Rob left Viking because he wanted to procede with the Buffalo conversion and now he's with Ledcore who have deep pockets and just happen to own several Buff,s
We can only hope.!!

[2R]

What is brown and smelly and comes out the ass end of a Buffalo ?

THE AIRBORNE


Well, at least they used to until they banned fighting men in the forces.


Back on thread,
Doc you would never know what the load was , as they would always lie to the pilot.
The only way to know when you were overloaded was when you were taxing on the sidewalls of the tires.
I was told that the airplane was not overloaded when it was riding on the sidewalls, it was a modification that by lowering the tire pressure allowed greater loads to be carried.

The old company motto was "the beatings will continue until morale improves "

[Doc]

GE CT-64 if I remember correctly, with a substantially higher TBO than our military, due to lack of "throttle-jockeying".

Takeoff 49,200 lbs , land 46,900 lbs, 18,000 lbs cargo, EOW around 25,000 lbs

Edit to add: this already great plane would be even better with Pratt's on it, air driven starters are not something you want when operating in remote places, not to mention the increased hp/lower fuel burn.

Which equals the PERFECT replacement Hawker replacement!