• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities

thunderchild said:
I agree lets get the plane the airforce wants and needs. 
I'd be careful here.  Our military has a fairly established history of wanting Brand X when it is not only different from what we need, but something that fails to meet our needs.  One of the nice things about competition (aside from appeasing the Treasury Board, government, opposition, industry and Canadian voters) is that it provides a venue through which industry must prove to us which product best meets our requirements (our needs as we've put them into the RFP).

Let the Air Force get what they need.
 
I would even go furhter, "Get the Airforce what it needs, as long as it isn't so unique as to be unsupportable"
 
It seems that Viking Air may be anticipating a business opportunity.
-------------------

Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/VikingProposesResurrectionDHC5_Buffalo_199455-1.html
By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief  December 23, 2008

Earlier this year Viking Air, of Victoria, B.C. Canada resumed production of the de Havilland Twin Otter and now it has its sights set on an even more ambitious project. The company, which owns the type certificate to seven de Havilland models, is proposing to start building the DHC-5 Buffalo, a large twin-engine utility aircraft with ultra short takeoff and landing capability and a rear cargo door that accommodated bulky cargo. The aircraft has been the backbone of the Canadian Forces' fixed wing search and rescue fleet for decades but the military is now looking for replacements for the 40-year-old aircraft. Viking President Dave Curtis says the most affordable answer is an updated Buff. "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," Curtis said.

Curtis said other countries have expressed interest in a modernized Buffalo, which would include more efficient, more powerful Pratt and Whitney Canada PW150 engines, glass cockpit with enhanced vision and NVG capability. There are at least two Buffaloes in commercial service in Canada's north and Viking says there is a potential market for civilian versions of the aircraft. Viking is proposing to phase in the new Buffaloes by upgrading existing aircraft first. New aircraft would be built at Viking's facilities in Victoria and Calgary.
 
Blackadder1916: A post at The Torch:

Buffed up?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffed-up.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
Would the same assembly technique be used  for a new buff as with the Twin Otter? ( parts cut in BC and moved to Calgary for assembly) Or would it be fabrication and assembly in Calgary?

Merry Christmas.
 
As it stands - unless Viking dramatically changes the design of the original DHC-5 Buffalo - nothing they make will be sufficient.

a) too slow;

b) not pressurized;

c) insufficient range; and

d) design is outdated.

The Buff was designed to be an intra-theatre tactical lift aircraft.  If Viking wishes to pitch that role to the CF, I am all for it.  It does not meet the needs of our frugal Airforce and its FWSAR replacement program.

Sorry Viking, too little too late.
 
I'm no expert so I'll just ask the questions from the pro's, Do you think that the design of the aircraft would allow for such major changes?
 
Zoomie said:
As it stands - unless Viking dramatically changes the design of the original DHC-5 Buffalo - nothing they make will be sufficient.

a) too slow;

b) not pressurized;

c) insufficient range; and

d) design is outdated.

The Buff was designed to be an intra-theatre tactical lift aircraft.  If Viking wishes to pitch that role to the CF, I am all for it.  It does not meet the needs of our frugal Airforce and its FWSAR replacement program.

Sorry Viking, too little too late.

Amen to that. I was in Summerside when we got the Buff as the replacement for the Albatross. Albatrosshttp://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp
As "an intra-theatre tactical lift aircraft" it might have been OK. As a SAR replacement on the east coast it was inferior to the Albatross in
range, weight it could carry, nav package etc. I know the nav package was improved but what we really wanted was Herc's like the US Coast Guard was using.
The C-27 looks very interesting.
 
A post at The Torch by Babbling Brooks--politics, politique; pork, porc:

Putting the push on for Viking Air
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/putting-push-on-for-viking-air.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
A post at The Torch by Babbling Brooks--politics, politique; pork, porc:
Putting the push on for Viking Air
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/putting-push-on-for-viking-air.html
Mark
Ottawa
Problem with dealing with Viking Air is that, while they might have the design rights to the DeHaviland family of aircraft.. they don't have the forms and jigs needed to go into production TODAY.  Notwithstanding the delays we've already seen for replacement aircraft, Viking Air tooling up for production would probably delay new aircraft production for another couple of years..... VS a C27J that is already in production.
 
First i would like to say I am not expert in FWSAR.

But what would be  the harm of Viking work with DND to upgrade the Buffalo.

They have already shown success in upgrading other dash aircraft.

I would like to mix of buffalo and C27J for in FWSAR.  Each aircraft complements  that other for different needs of FWSAR.

Thus would it not be better for the gov to buy 10 buffalo with an option of 10 - 15 more,
                                                            buy 10 C27j with option  of 10 - 15 more,

 
Ummm - how long would you give Viking air to come up with the production facilities ?

All Viking Air has right now are plans & the rights to manufacture from those plans.  All DeHaviland production facilities for Buffs were destroyed a long, long, long time ago -  they do not exist anymore & I may be wrong, but I would expect the FAA & Department of Transport to have to re-certify the aircraft prior to going into production once again.
 
I never heard CF wanted the V-22 has a FWSAR...anyway this VTOL was based on the CL-84 (Canadian made) who was cancelled in 1960s due of the high risk of flight and high cost per hours and maintenance. The V-22 had thousand of confirmed incident or accident since his development and his services in the U.S Marines Corps, so it isn't a safe "aircraft" for Search & Rescue and not much safer for military use on the battlefield. USMC had confirmed this years they need replacement of his twin engine not enough powerful or safer or cancelled the program, just an idea how its safe to use the V-22.

airbellboeingqtrconceptxc9.jpg


The V-44 its maybe the replacement of the V-22 more safety than the V-22 (In theory)...anyway this kind of "aircraft" are from cold war, a VTOL aircraft (such the F-35) are not an essential tool and so it is a waste of money, image has a FWSAR.

Moderator edit to remove link IAW guidelines
 
Forget the V22, forget the Canadair CL-84...
The Airforce currently needs (near immediate need) aircraft for fixed wing Search & Rescue aircraft.
The Buffalos & Hercules aircraft are all pert much worn out & clapped out - needing a lot more than a lick of paint to make the SAR thing.
Do we have the time to drag things out any longer than we already have - in the hopes that someone can build a new plane.... sometime in the future - should we throw enough money at the problem ???

I don't think so.  The need is real & it is now
 
geo said:
Ummm - how long would you give Viking air to come up with the production facilities ?

All Viking Air has right now are plans & the rights to manufacture from those plans.  All DeHaviland production facilities for Buffs were destroyed a long, long, long time ago -  they do not exist anymore & I may be wrong, but I would expect the FAA & Department of Transport to have to re-certify the aircraft prior to going into production once again.

It would seem that Viking's expectation is that the certification process would be similar to what it is encountering with the Twin Otter,  much less intensive than if it was a new design.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/TWIN12018.xml&headline=Twin%20Otter%20On%20Track%20For%20Mid-2009%20Deliveries&channel=busav
Twin Otter On Track For Mid-2009 Deliveries

Aviation Week Dec 1, 2008 David Collogan

Fresh off 60 hours of flight tests with the prototype DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400, officials of manufacturer Viking Air remain confident the first production aircraft will be delivered to a customer this coming summer.

The float-equipped prototype made its first flight Oct. 1. It was then flown to Orlando where it towered over many of the other aircraft in the static display at the National Business Aviation Association convention during the first week of October. Because the Series 400 will be built "under an update" of the original Twin Otter type certificate, the number of required flight test hours is far lower than for an all-new aircraft, said David Curtis, president and CEO of the Victoria, British Columbia-based Viking. Since Viking does not have to certify an entire new design, he told BA, the flight test program is "somewhat mundane." The prototype is now back in the hangar where the floats are being removed and technicians are installing digital acquisition units as part of detailed checks and tests of the Honeywell Apex integrated avionics system. The Apex system worked quite well during water tests, Curtis said. Even when the aircraft was put into unusual attitudes and subjected to heavy wave action the Apex system consistently spooled up within 40 seconds of being activated, he said.

Certification of the Apex installation in the Series 400 is "the long pole in the tent," Curtis said, but he remains confident Transport Canada and European Aviation Safety Agency approval will be nearly concurrent. Officials from both agencies are already engaged in the Apex approval process, he said, and the human factors assessment has been completed. No significant hitches are anticipated because the Apex system was recently approved in the Pilatus PC-12 NG single-engine turboprop so "folks are familiar with it," he said. Viking is pursuing EASA certification before FAA because several of its early customers are based in Europe.

Curtis is "not naive to the fact we're dealing with two different regulatory organizations," but he said company officials have attempted to engage officials of those agencies early on to help ensure there are no unexpected problems. "So far, so good," Curtis said. The Series 400 certification schedule is aggressive, he acknowledged, but "we're just working hard to minimize those risks." On the production side, Curtis said the first customer aircraft, S/N 845, "just came out of the major jigs" at the company's final assembly facility in Calgary, Alberta, major components for S/N 846 left Victoria for Calgary on Nov. 24 and work on S/N 847 is under way in Victoria.


Orders continue to hover "around the 40 mark," a satisfactory level at this point, Curtis said, because with Viking's conservative ramp-up schedule the backlog currently extends into late 2011 or early 2012. There continues to be "a fair amount of activity" on the sales front, Curtis said, noting an order this month for two Series 400 aircraft from Maldivian Air Taxi (MAT). The company already is the "largest Twin Otter seaplane operator in the world," Viking said, with a fleet of 24 heritage Twin Otters in service.

Viking hopes to deliver seven Series 400 aircraft in 2009 and to reach a production rate of one per month in 2010, climbing to 1.5 per month in 2011. The production rate is purposely being held down next year, Curtis said, to make sure the manufacturing process is completely debugged before the rate is ramped up. The Viking CEO readily acknowledges that the Series 400, like the original Twin Otter, is a niche airplane. But many current operators are now flying aircraft that are 25 or 30 years old, and Curtis is confident there is a "core replacement market" that will supply the orders to get through the challenging economic times that currently prevail.

As for financing of the Series 400 program itself, Curtis notes that Viking is part of Westkirk Capital, Inc., a Canadian private investment firm that Curtis said is well capitalized. "We're within 5 percent of where we said we would be" on capital costs, Curtis said. "We're not trying to raise any capital," Curtis said, because it is not needed. Viking does have a few customers scheduled to take aircraft deliveries next year that need financing for their purchases, but he said the company is working with Canada's Export Development Corp. to make sure the financing will be there for those who need it.

However, as Zoomie very adequately puts it, it doesn't meet the current needs of FWSAR.  Viking may have business potential for a renewed Buff in the same niche (commercial) market that (primarily) bought Canada's few surplus Buffalos but it is probably unlikely that such a venture will get off the ground unless there was a guarantee of X sales before reopening production.




 
FMR said:
anyway this VTOL was based on the CL-84 (Canadian made)

Not really.

FMR said:
anyway this kind of "aircraft" are from cold war

So what? So are our rifles and machineguns, our LAVs, our Leopard 2s, our CF18s, and a lot of our other stuff. So are a lot of other aircraft performing quite well in the current conflicts.

FMR said:
VTOL aircraft (such the F-35)

Not all F35 variants are.

FMR said:
VTOL aircraft (such the F-35) are not an essential tool and so it is a waste of money,

Those who know far more than you disagree.

You've been on this site for less than twenty-four hours. Read some more here before spouting off about things that you know little about.
 
So Loachman if they're not based on the Canadian made, they're based on German made,the  first "VTOL" aircraft called Weserflug during the end of world war two (1944-1945). The principal idea of a Tilt rotor are very great, but seriously dangerous to use (thousand of incident and accident since his development in 1989). Well maybe you have right..just my opinion.
p100303gr9.jpg



For my part i'm for the C-27J, and for a new production line of DHC-5 Buffalo.
 
FMR said:
The principal idea of a Tilt rotor are very great, but seriously dangerous to use (thousand of incident and accident since his development in 1989).
It seems to me that the system has been show safe enough to have been accepted into operational service and deployed.  Can you provide a reference for these thousands of incidents (and maybe also show that the problems have not been overcome), or should I just write-off your contributions as exaggerations in which truth need not get in the way of an argument? 
 
It seems to me that the system has been show safe enough to have been accepted into operational service and deployed.  Can you provide a reference for these thousands of incidents (and maybe also show that the problems have not been overcome), or should I just write-off your contributions as exaggerations in which truth need not get in the way of an argument? 

According to the United States Marine Corp, the V-22 Osprey will revolutionize troop deployment and allow the Corp to retire its aging fleet of troop transport helicopters. However, critics of the Boeing tilt-rotor hybrid call the Osprey a death trap.

Twenty-three marines have died in Osprey crashes since 2000. Currently, a decision on whether to mass-produce the aircraft is being debated by Pentagon and Marine officials. The $31 billion program is a pet project of the Marines but has been opposed by other military leaders and Pentagon bureaucrats for several years. Critics say that the half helicopter, half plane Osprey is far too complex to safely and effectively complete its mission. The aircraft has a history of maintenance problems that have hampered its chances of winning over detractors. In fact, the maintenance issues are so severe that a top Marine Lieutenant Colonel encouraged his subordinates to misstate maintenance records in an attempt to paint the Osprey in as best light as possible.

The plane, which can carry 24 soldiers at over 300 miles per hour, is coveted by the Marine Corps because of its ability to fly at speeds comparable to a fixed wing aircraft, yet land and takeoff much like a helicopter. The Osprey is used in sea borne assault missions where troops are transported from ships to coastal areas.

But why does the Marine Corp insist on supporting an aircraft that is so unreliable and potentially deadly? The Federal government's General Accounting Office has found 22 major deficiencies with the aircraft. Phil Coil, the military's Chief of Testing & Evaluation has called the Osprey "not operationally suitable." In addition, Mr. Coil believes that if full production of the Osprey goes forward, the program "will impose an unacceptable burden in cost, manpower, mission reliability, and operational reliability to the fleet."

Even after two major crashes of the Osprey on April 18, 2000 and December 11, 2000 which killed nearly two dozen Marines, the Marine Deputy Commandant for Aviation, Lieutenant General Fred Marshal said, "I consider the Osprey to be the best aircraft I have ever been in. This accident is not going to do anything to the Osprey program."

Few picture of the V-22 of fatal crash
75090800da0.jpg


v22crashio9.jpg



 
FMR.....did you hear that ?

Its the sound of you talking out of your..........
 
Back
Top