So, what is an FWSAR you say ? In Canadian Forces-speak, it's a "Fixed Wing Search and Rescue" a/c. CF have been looking to replace a mixed bag of Twin Otters, Buffaloes, and C-130Hs for some time now. Laid out some things the were looking for:

- one type in tis role;
- higher transit speeds;
- longer range;
- ability t carry current standard kit.

So they framed a set of requirements that inevitably led to the Alenia C-27J, which is the /ac they wanted all along. And don't get me wrong, it's a fine a/c.

But along the way it looks like the program planners got tunnel vision and were so focussed on ensuring they got the C-27J thay they did not consider some mission requirements. And now, having pissed away several years of effort, it all starts over again. How very Canadian !

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...4e8892-efa5-400a-a5df-9e81be980c8a

http://www.casr.ca/bg-af-fwsar-project.htm

A Canadian blogger's assessment of how the overall program was rigged in favour of the C-27J:

http://davidpugliese.wordpress.com/tag/fwsar/

and CF's response to the report from NRC about how the FWSAR program had been run:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/statement-declaration-eng.asp

This is likely not surprising to A.netters who have been involved in procurement, particularly military, previously. But geez, Louise, it seems to me that if you run a transparent, non-biased evaluation exercise, then you inevitably arrive at the best solution.

So, it looks like it will be at least several more years before the FWSAR hardware begins t oarrive. At that point, the Buffs and Hercs will be 50+ years old. Is this any way to run an air force ?

Hey connies4ever...

Are these A/C to be used as strictly Territorial / Coast Guard SAR or are they also to used as CSAR A/C for the Military?

Quoting mffoda (Reply 1): Are these A/C to be used as strictly Territorial / Coast Guard SAR or are they also to used as CSAR A/C for the Military?

Howdy-
My understanding is that they are intended for mainly civilian SAR, acknowledging that sometimes even the military need to be rescued. Coastal Patrol missions are the preserve of the Coast Guard, which contracts it out for the most part. Raising the question of do we even need a military SAR component to basically serve civilian distress. Many nations are now contracting out the whole bit.

Granted I know next to nothing about the specifics of SAR but for Coastal operations, wouldn't
the likes of Beriev's A40 series or the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 be a useable platform,
They both have the range and the speed, can carry fairly big loads and can be used to land and take off
from the sea, albeit within limits.

Has this ever been contemplated by big coastal services like in Canada, the US or Australia/New Zealand ?

ShinMaywa US-2

Beriev's Albatros

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 3): Granted I know next to nothing about the specifics of SAR but for Coastal operations, wouldn't the likes of Beriev's A40 series or the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 be a useable platform, They both have the range and the speed, can carry fairly big loads and can be used to land and take off from the sea, albeit within limits. Has this ever been contemplated by big coastal services like in Canada, the US or Australia/New Zealand ?

Great photos, b.t.w. !

Not sure if any possible civilian operator would want to get into amphibs/boats. Operating costs could be very high, and of course open water operations limited by sea state. Swells probably no more than 2m or so. That's usually called a calm day on the North Atlantic. I'd bet any civilian SAR operator would be looking at a helo in mid-size range which would limit off-shore access to perhaps 300-400 km. The EH101 can exceed this, and do so in far worse conditions than most Sikorsky/Agusta/Eurocopter a/c, but it's fabulously expensive.

For further out into the chuck, something like a turbine twin suitable modified with an extra fuel tank, rafts/floats etc. would be the likely choice.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2): Howdy- My understanding is that they are intended for mainly civilian SAR, acknowledging that sometimes even the military need to be rescued.

So here lies the the problem...

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter): - one type in tis role; - higher transit speeds; - longer range; - ability t carry current standard kit.

I think the single A/C type is the biggest obstacle to this discussion?

I totally understand Canada's love affair w/ the buffalo (I love it too) but that is really just a jobs program at this point...

Additionally, nationalism could play a role (Nothing wrong with that btw!) in other tenders. Like any A/C that has P&W Canada engines... for instance?

The C-27J is an excellent A/C as far as relative price, capabilities and compatibility with already in service A/C (C-130J). Though adds another A/C type with all the related training, specific spares and supply chain.

IMHO, I believe the C-130J (more precisely the HC-130J) would be a wise choice for Canada. Because, It offers:

- The type is already in service with the CAF and can expand the capabilities of the Military as well as provide long range and long endurance SAR to the civilian sector. (and in the SAR role these 4 engine A/C can extend their TOT by feathering 2 engines).

- The HC like the KC can provide aerial refueling and increase the endurance of Rotary wing A/C (If that is a capability they desire).

- The one type in this role; higher transit speeds; longer range; ability to carry current standard kit. question? Really only fits the C-130J for a Country the size of Canada.

And before you ask.. No! I an Not a LM salesman...  

Quoting mffoda (Reply 5): I totally understand Canada's love affair w/ the buffalo (I love it too) but that is really just a jobs program at this point...

So do I, as an a/c. And as a SAR a/c it has a really valuable feature: can fly low and slow. However, very short-legged, and transit speeds are not exactly galloping. The BuffNG program would wind up giving the CF a fleet of a/c unique in the world, both good and bad, and as you say it would be a jobs program.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 5): The C-27J is an excellent A/C as far as relative price, capabilities and compatibility with already in service A/C (C-130J). Though adds another A/C type with all the related training, specific spares and supply chain.

Agreed, but fair bit of commonality with the Super Herc. Also can serve as a tactical transport if need be.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 5): IMHO, I believe the C-130J (more precisely the HC-130J) would be a wise choice for Canada. Because, It offers:

Very expensive for SAR work. It would add a lot of capability, but that could also be achieved by SAR pallets installed in existing fleets C-130Js - done now with the 'H's.

Which points to the need to really look hard at outsourcing SAR work, and let the civilian operator decide the a/c of choice. If at that point CF feels it still needs more medium lift, they can go to DND/MoD and justify another purchase of C-130Js, like 7 or 8.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6): Which points to the need to really look hard at outsourcing SAR work, and let the civilian operator decide the a/c of choice. If at that point CF feels it still needs more medium lift, they can go to DND/MoD and justify another purchase of C-130Js, like 7 or 8.

Those civilian SAR operators do important work, and frequently, but I'm not sure they will have the training/infrastructure/capabilities to handle a major incident.

Do you really think that the CF will retain the sizeable chunk of its budget if it were to lose its SAR role? Make no mistake, we are flying these aircraft and conducting these missions on a very tight budget tightrope. If we cut the rope, the money will not go back to the Canadian Forces; it will go elsewhere. FWSAR/RWSAR provides an excellent source of highly trained and confident aviators as SAR pilots fly operationally every day in challenging conditions. These skills pay dividends when these aviators move on to instructing or flying combat missions into austere strips overseas. The tangible costs/benefits associated with this role is huge.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7): Do you really think that the CF will retain the sizeable chunk of its budget if it were to lose its SAR role? Make no mistake, we are flying these aircraft and conducting these missions on a very tight budget tightrope. If we cut the rope, the money will not go back to the Canadian Forces; it will go elsewhere. FWSAR/RWSAR provides an excellent source of highly trained and confident aviators as SAR pilots fly operationally every day in challenging conditions. These skills pay dividends when these aviators move on to instructing or flying combat missions into austere strips overseas. The tangible costs/benefits associated with this role is huge.

Oh I am quite aware the CF want to retain the FW/RWSAR roles so they can have dual/multi-purpose frames available for whatever tasking is required, and the budget allocation to support that. The bigger question is: what is in the best interest of the Canadian nation (as opposed to the Canadian Forces -- the two don't necessarily have the same needs).

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter): So, it looks like it will be at least several more years before the FWSAR hardware begins t oarrive. At that point, the Buffs and Hercs will be 50+ years old.

And run the risk of needing rescuing themselves.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 4): The EH101 can exceed this, and do so in far worse conditions than most Sikorsky/Agusta/Eurocopter a/c, but it's fabulously expensive.

Couldn't a few of the VH-71 frames acquired by Canada for a song be made airworthy and converted for this mission? Of course, it's not from there and would no longer be FW.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6): Quoting mffoda (Reply 5): The C-27J is an excellent A/C as far as relative price, capabilities and compatibility with already in service A/C (C-130J). Though adds another A/C type with all the related training, specific spares and supply chain. Agreed, but fair bit of commonality with the Super Herc. Also can serve as a tactical transport if need be.

http://news.finmeccanicausa.com/imag...s/9038/media_gallery/C27Jphoto.JPG

Hints of railroading aside, the Spartan is nonetheless an eminently suitable platform, and versatile to boot.   

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 9): And run the risk of needing rescuing themselves.

  

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 9): Couldn't a few of the VH-71 frames acquired by Canada for a song be made airworthy and converted for this mission? Of course, it's not from there and would no longer be FW.

Not sure what state the VH-71 airframes were in when acquired. Stated as being bought for spares, so I assume knocking them down quickly is a priority.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 9): Hints of railroading aside, the Spartan is nonetheless an eminently suitable platform, and versatile to boot.

No railroading read in, the C-27J as I have mentioned a couple of times is a terrific platform both for SAR and as a tactical transport. As long as the main SAR resource is designated as the CF, then having a dual-use platform makes a lot of sense.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10): No railroading read in

I was referring to the article's charge that the specs were written to favor the C-27J.  

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 11): I was referring to the article's charge that the specs were written to favor the C-27J.

What is difficult to explain is how the specs were determined.

Canada's SAR coverage is divided into multiple zones. All but one SAR coverage zone is served by the C-130 Hercules, the bulk being E's and H's. Only one coverage zone is covered by the DHC-5 Buffalo, the Victoria SAR region. Thus the specifications naturally favour a larger, more capable aircraft. The Buffalo used to cover every coverage zone, but the Ocean Ranger disaster in the 1980's changed all of that; the Buffalo was determined to be too slow, and too short legged to adequately cover all of Canada. Therefore, C-130's stepped into to provide SAR coverage, except for the Victoria SAR region, where due to mountainous terrain, C-130's that we had had a hard time operating due to a lack of stall warning system which made flying at slow speeds very harzardous, and the large size made it difficult to maneuver in the mountains, and the small coverage area compensated for the slow speed and short range of the Buffalo. Thus the specifications, lean towards one end of the spectrum of capabilities than the other because of this simple fact.

FWSAR requires a robust aircraft with large cargo capacity and easy loading of equipment via a rear ramp (preferably palletized equipment, like on the C-130, not hand loaded like the DHC-5). You would be surprised to learn how much stuff is jammed into SAR aircraft on a daily basis. SARtechs are a peculiar lot - anything that they might need, they strap a chute on it and carry it on board.

We are moving away from the C-130 as a SAR platform due to its cost effectiveness (i.e. fuel burn) and its size (too big). FWSAR is about providing a new aircraft that has at minimum, the capability of providing the same level of coverage we have today, or better. Therefore, the performance specs were set in such a way to reflect this; for example, there is a minimum speed requirement and range requirement, which of the 2 main bidders, only one qualifies.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 8): Oh I am quite aware the CF want to retain the FW/RWSAR roles so they can have dual/multi-purpose frames available for whatever tasking is required, and the budget allocation to support that. The bigger question is: what is in the best interest of the Canadian nation (as opposed to the Canadian Forces -- the two don't necessarily have the same needs).

There is really no other institution in Canada willing to take on the SAR role in Canada. The Canadian Coast Guard is essentially a union shop unlike the US Coast Guard and despises SAR, and their crews are minimally trained in SAR capabilities. The RCMP, while having the right mindset, doesn't have the capability to provide front line SAR capabilities. Only the Canadian Forces has the capabilities to provide SAR coverage.

[Edited 2011-09-30 18:45:19]

Sounds more like FUBAR than FWSAR!

Canada's SAR coverage is too limited, and a C-27J fleet isn't going to change that fact. The lack of CAF presence in the Arctic is widely seen as a major strategic flaw, which includes the lack of SAR capabilities and lengthy response times. It is totally unacceptable for air crash survivors, or victims of other incidents/accidents, to wait 6 hours for trained SAR techs to be deployed on scene. Expecting a rag-tag, poorly trained, and ill-equipped group of civilian reservists to tend to the needs of said survivors and victims is, again, totally unacceptable. Over the next 20 years, climate change and new cost efficient technology will make natural resources in the Arctic more accessible, therefore increasing major on-shore and off-shore mining, oil, and gas operations. In addition, new shipping lanes, which will cut transit time in half for ships, will be made accessible due to the melting ice packs. To support the major infrastructure change, you can bet that air-traffic will also increase 10-fold as large companies build their own private airstrips adjacent to their camps to haul employees back and forth. In addition to an Arctic port, it is clear that a permanent CFB, with the ability to launch SAR operations, is needed up north. Buying a new fleet of aircraft for the RCAF isn't going to improve SAR operations much. The chances of a major plane crash, or some other disaster, is going to increase as commercial activity in the Arctic increases. The next time it happens, the Canadian Forces won't be next door to rescue people.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12): We are moving away from the C-130 as a SAR platform due to its cost effectiveness (i.e. fuel burn) and its size (too big). FWSAR is about providing a new aircraft that has at minimum, the capability of providing the same level of coverage we have today, or better. Therefore, the performance specs were set in such a way to reflect this; for example, there is a minimum speed requirement and range requirement, which of the 2 main bidders, only one qualifies.

Which was exactly the conclusion of the NRC review of the program definition: the specs were written in such a way that only the C-27J would qualify, ergo, a false 'competition'. Also, not all relevant issues taken into account.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12): There is really no other institution in Canada willing to take on the SAR role in Canada. The Canadian Coast Guard is essentially a union shop unlike the US Coast Guard and despises SAR, and their crews are minimally trained in SAR capabilities. The RCMP, while having the right mindset, doesn't have the capability to provide front line SAR capabilities. Only the Canadian Forces has the capabilities to provide SAR coverage.

Has it even been proposed that a pan-Canadian civilian SAR operation take over ? Have civilian operators been privy to the requirements and specifications (or service levels, if you will) they would need to meet ? All of the above institutions you mention are military or quasi-military (i.e., uniformed with some type of command structure). Does this indicate tunnel vision ?

Quoting GDB (Reply 13): Sounds more like FUBAR than FWSAR!

Common in Canada for government procurement programs, military or otherwise. I'm sure this is true elsewhere (see: Nimrod)

Quoting TheCol (Reply 14): Canada's SAR coverage is too limited, and a C-27J fleet isn't going to change that fact. The lack of CAF presence in the Arctic is widely seen as a major strategic flaw, which includes the lack of SAR capabilities and lengthy response times. It is totally unacceptable for air crash survivors, or victims of other incidents/accidents, to wait 6 hours for trained SAR techs to be deployed on scene. Expecting a rag-tag, poorly trained, and ill-equipped group of civilian reservists to tend to the needs of said survivors and victims is, again, totally unacceptable. Over the next 20 years, climate change and new cost efficient technology will make natural resources in the Arctic more accessible, therefore increasing major on-shore and off-shore mining, oil, and gas operations. In addition, new shipping lanes, which will cut transit time in half for ships, will be made accessible due to the melting ice packs. To support the major infrastructure change, you can bet that air-traffic will also increase 10-fold as large companies build their own private airstrips adjacent to their camps to haul employees back and forth. In addition to an Arctic port, it is clear that a permanent CFB, with the ability to launch SAR operations, is needed up north. Buying a new fleet of aircraft for the RCAF isn't going to improve SAR operations much. The chances of a major plane crash, or some other disaster, is going to increase as commercial activity in the Arctic increases. The next time it happens, the Canadian Forces won't be next door to rescue people.

Much of the above I absolutely agree with. As the NW Passage opens to 'normal' sea traffic, at least in the summer months, we're likely going to have more Arctic 'SOS's' than ever, and with increasing flights direct into China ex Europe/Eastern N America, the probability of a need for a MAJAID situation increases, but we are woefully lacking in rapid response capability. Therefore some type of Arctic presence will be necessary. Perhaps when the facility at Arctic Bay/Nanisivik ("Ft Harper") is ready then this will be addressed.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15): Which was exactly the conclusion of the NRC review of the program definition: the specs were written in such a way that only the C-27J would qualify, ergo, a false 'competition'. Also, not all relevant issues taken into account.

The specs were written in a way that the performance spectrum leaned towards an aircraft with similar performance to the C-130 Hercules, as that's the current FWSAR aircraft for most of Canada. The preference is that we go with an aircraft with similar performance to the C-130 to maintain the existing capabilities; anything slower and shorter on legs would not do.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15): Has it even been proposed that a pan-Canadian civilian SAR operation take over ? Have civilian operators been privy to the requirements and specifications (or service levels, if you will) they would need to meet ? All of the above institutions you mention are military or quasi-military (i.e., uniformed with some type of command structure). Does this indicate tunnel vision ?

Never; there are a number of issues that prevent a civilian operator from performing front line SAR in Canada; liability and insurance. For example, some of the private mountain rescue groups in BC in the past have stopped performing search and rescues because of liability considerations, and the cost of insurance. It was only until the government stepped in that private groups resumed search and rescue work.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15): Much of the above I absolutely agree with. As the NW Passage opens to 'normal' sea traffic, at least in the summer months, we're likely going to have more Arctic 'SOS's' than ever, and with increasing flights direct into China ex Europe/Eastern N America, the probability of a need for a MAJAID situation increases, but we are woefully lacking in rapid response capability. Therefore some type of Arctic presence will be necessary. Perhaps when the facility at Arctic Bay/Nanisivik ("Ft Harper") is ready then this will be addressed.

The analysis is that 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel. It is fiscally unfeasible to establish a full time SAR presence in the North because of this.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16): The analysis is that 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel. It is fiscally unfeasible to establish a full time SAR presence in the North because of this.

That will change over the next 20 years. The Canadian government needs to quit delaying plans for the future of the Arctic territories. It's not only a strategic issue, it's also a big economic issue as well. Big oil, gas, and mining companies will be less willing to operate in the Arctic with no support infrastructure. Each company has a long list of operating requirements for their transport and private aerodrome contractors, as well as for the availability of air traffic and general support services provided to the civil aviation industry. If those requirements aren't met, then those companies won't do business with us. The same can be said for large ship lines. Like you said about private SAR operators, it all comes down to liability and insurance.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16): The analysis is that 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel. It is fiscally unfeasible to establish a full time SAR presence in the North because of this.

"fiscally unfeasible"

So the unfortunate 1% (10 in a thousand human beings) are out of luck? The entire principle behind SAR is to go out (at great personal risk) and rescue the needy!

Let me put it this way?

Breaking News!!!... Canadian PM's aircraft goes down above 60th parallel! No rescue will be attempted... As it is "fiscally unfeasible" to proceed... end of message!  

Quoting mffoda (Reply 18): "fiscally unfeasible" So the unfortunate 1% (10 in a thousand human beings) are out of luck? The entire principle behind SAR is to go out (at great personal risk) and rescue the needy! Let me put it this way? Breaking News!!!... Canadian PM's aircraft goes down above 60th parallel! No rescue will be attempted... As it is "fiscally unfeasible" to proceed... end of message!

To provide the same level of coverage all across Canada for the North, there would be a need to invest billions of dollars in getting the necessary infrastructure and equipment, not to mention the need for personnel. The Canadian public doesn't have the stomach to invest billions for search and rescue in the North unfortunately, and we are already extremely stretched thin in terms of personnel.

Remarkably, most FWSAR missions happen out where the population is very sparse. Canada always has been and always will be a country where the vast majority of the people live a great distance from the Arctic. Ironically, that's where, not only, the greatest challenge to our national sovereignty is but in the next decade or so, will see the largest percentage growth in economic influence and population growth.

There is never any good economic reason to save some poor bugger who is lost at sea...so why would that be any more of a consideration in the Arctic compared to the North Atlantic?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16): The preference is that we go with an aircraft with similar performance to the C-130 to maintain the existing capabilities; anything slower and shorter on legs would not do.

...unless we have stations closer to where they would be needed. How often have the capabilities of the Buffalo been inadequate where the C-27 would have excelled, in real rescue missions?

While the C-27 may be better at some things, speed isn't one of them...being only 15kt faster than the Viking Buffalo...hardly a deal breaker. Not only that, the new Buffalo can fly slower, take off and land in a significantly shorter distance, (needing almost half as much runway), and use unimproved strips.

Here is a perspective presented by Viking so they put their best spin on things but specs are specs;

http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-buffalo-specs.htm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 20): ...unless we have stations closer to where they would be needed. How often have the capabilities of the Buffalo been inadequate where the C-27 would have excelled, in real rescue missions? While the C-27 may be better at some things, speed isn't one of them...being only 15kt faster than the Viking Buffalo...hardly a deal breaker. Not only that, the new Buffalo can fly slower, take off and land in a significantly shorter distance, (needing almost half as much runway), and use unimproved strips. Here is a perspective presented by Viking so they put their best spin on things but specs are specs; http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-b...s.htm

1 phrase says it all: paper airplane.

As it stands - unless Viking dramatically changes the design of the original DHC-5 Buffalo (resulting in a whole new airplane) - nothing they make will be sufficient.

a) too slow;

b) not pressurized;

c) insufficient range; and

d) design is outdated.

The DHC-5 Buffalo 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. When it moved into the SAR role in the 1970's to replace the Grumman Albatrosson the east coast it was inferior to the Albatross in every which way, from range, weight it could carry, nav package etc. The general consensus in the East Coast SAR community was that the SAR techs got screwed with an inferior aircraft, and people died as a result.

The old "she's good in the mountains because it can fly slow" only rings true when we are working down low in them. Any time we are trying to get over them in a hurry, to render aid to anywhere other than Coastal BC, it can be a royal pain to be tethered to an oxygen mask. The DHC-5 is box shaped in cross section, and basic geometry and physics states that rectangles aren't strong enough to be pressurized. We want an aircraft that can be pressurized so our crew can work in the back during transit to a rescue site and fly above the weather and not have to be tethered to oxygen masks or be forced to fly through long, winding mountain passages to get to a rescue site.

The DHC-5 is a good airplane if you understand the restrictions it has; but as soon as we need to head into the interior we seriously handicap our SAR capabilities with the lack of pressurization and power.

I would be interested to know where they got their stats for this DHC-5NG from? For a plane that doesn't exist yet, no prototype, not ever an engineers wet-dream - pretty bold stats. Not to mention the pretty glaring omissions and details that they left out; for example, I'd also like to see the "projections" that fly the DHC-5NG at 300 kts (vice 235) -- that's a 28% increase in VNE and a 62% increase in power required (approximately the square of the linear speed increase), which would require the planned PW150 turboshaft engines to output 5070 SHP, compared to the existing Buffalo's CT64-820-4 engines currently rated at at 3130 SHP rated. Not to mention the planned PW150 engine is more fuel thirsty; so any proposed DHC-5NG would have a even more shorter range than the current DHC-5.

The technical issues have been discussed ad nauseum here.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21): As it stands - unless Viking dramatically changes the design of the original DHC-5 Buffalo (resulting in a whole new airplane) - nothing they make will be sufficient. a) too slow; b) not pressurized; c) insufficient range; and d) design is outdated.

They are changing the engines and the instruments...with proven engines and instruments. Not anything like a whole new plane.

a) within 15kts of the speed of the C-27

b) except for transiting over the mountains in BC, (where the current buffalos seem to be doing just fine), it's not an issue. To do any SAR work, the doors will be open so pressurization is moot.

c) I can't find any documents with the range of the NG.

d) You mean like the herc? Or the Viking twin otter which is selling quite well, despite being 'outdated'.

The Buffalo will be able to fly slower than the C-27, important during SAR ops, will require runways almost half the length required by the C-27, and require less improved runways, giving them significantly more staging options

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21): I would be interested to know where they got their stats for this DHC-5NG from? For a plane that doesn't exist yet, no prototype, not ever an engineers wet-dream - pretty bold stats.

Because they are using a known airframe, and improving them from known components. They get their stats the same way every airline manufacturer gets theirs when they are planning an aircraft; from calculation, testing and logic.

It's the same way that Airbus can offer stats for their yet to be built A350 or NEO, or any maker for any aircraft they are planning. It is very close to rocket science, but folks have been doing it even longer.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22): They are changing the engines and the instruments...with proven engines and instruments. Not anything like a whole new plane. a) within 15kts of the speed of the C-27 b) except for transiting over the mountains in BC, (where the current buffalos seem to be doing just fine), it's not an issue. To do any SAR work, the doors will be open so pressurization is moot. c) I can't find any documents with the range of the NG. d) You mean like the herc? Or the Viking twin otter which is selling quite well, despite being 'outdated'. The Buffalo will be able to fly slower than the C-27, important during SAR ops, will require runways almost half the length required by the C-27, and require less improved runways, giving them significantly more staging options

Umm... have you read the previous discussion?

Quote: Did anyone catch that the DHC-5 Buffalo's Vne is only 235 knots? Viking Air has proposed that they can increase the speed to 300 knots. That's at least 21.6% increase in maximum speed. In order to achieve that speed, you need a 62% increase in power required. There is no way they can even hope of reaching that speed with the engine performance they are proposing to use (a de-rated PW150). This is all assuming that the airframe is capable of withstanding aerodynamic forces that will result from such a massive increase in speed, which it won't, which would entail a lengthy and costly redesign process, which would require complete type re-certification by all of the major aviation authorities before any customer is allowed near it.

Viking Air deliberately dropped information from their proposal (such as range), choosing to select information that would make their proposal 'look' superior. However, looking at the information they are providing, the basic analysis is that their DHC-5NG would have a shorter range than the current DHC-5, because they haven't increase the fuel tank size, but they are using bigger, more fuel thirsty engines.

Pressurization is a major issue. The Herc that we use for SAR is pressurized. SAR techs want a pressurized aircraft because it means during a transit, they can fly high and fast, and fly above weather and still be able to move around in the cabin to configure equipment. Right now the DHC-5, there are a lot of restrictions placed because of a lack of pressurization. It's also either an icebox or a oven depending on the season. In order to fly anywhere except up to Alaska - we require IFR altitudes in excess of 10k' MSL. This then requires the crew to don helmets and greatly restricts the ability to work effectively, basically the SAR crew are then strictly in transport mode at that time. The current lack of pressurization creates significant issues with crew fatigue. We currently severely handicap our capabilities right now with the lack of pressurization in the DHC-5.

STOL is fun on the DHC-5 - but hardly ever used (if at all) operationally. Every strip that the DHC-5 flies to right now, the C-130 can fly to right now (with a few non SAR exceptions).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22): Because they are using a known airframe, and improving them from known components. They get their stats the same way every airline manufacturer gets theirs when they are planning an aircraft; from calculation, testing and logic. It's the same way that Airbus can offer stats for their yet to be built A350 or NEO, or any maker for any aircraft they are planning. It is very close to rocket science, but folks have been doing it even longer.

Umm, unless Viking Air has some voodoo magic up their sleeves, some elements of their proposal are not technically feasible. I'm not an aviation engineer, but the ones I have asked say they have more questions than answers looking over Viking Air's proposal.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):

So far, other than amateur guesses, I haven't seen a single professional aerospace engineer claiming that they could prove Viking could not get the buffalo to do what they claim.

It's up to Buffalo to put up or shut up come decision time but there also needs to be something more than, "I asked around a couple of guys and they didn't think so", to disprove their claims.


That's not exactly conclusive science.

I'm curious...are you a SAR tech or pilot?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 24): So far, other than amateur guesses, I haven't seen a single professional aerospace engineer claiming that they could prove Viking could not get the buffalo to do what they claim. It's up to Buffalo to put up or shut up come decision time but there also needs to be something more than, "I asked around a couple of guys and they didn't think so", to disprove their claims.

Ok, for starters, how are they going to increase Vne by 28%? They are proposing a minimally changed DHC-5 with new engines, and their proposed Buffalo can fly 28% faster than than the previous do not exceed speed. Answer that.

Viking Air has said they are looking into pressurizing the Buffalo. Unless I am sorely mistaken, it is difficult to pressurize a square box, without building a structure so thick, it becomes extremely heavy.

How about those more thirstier engines? The PW150 drinks more fuel per hp compared to the DHC-5, and it is a heavier engine by default. No increase in the fuel tank size, so you got an aircraft with a shorter range.

And did anyone forget to mention that all of the tooling, and plans for the DHC-5 no longer exists? Viking Air will have to reverse engineer the DHC-5 from scratch and then draw the aircraft up in CAD. Big undertaking here, something Viking Air might not have the capabilities to do.

We are already having maintenance headaches as it is with the current DHC-5 fleet; the only shop in the world that specialized in DHC-5 heavy maintenance, Field Aviation in Calgary, got out of the DHC-5 overhaul business a few years ago. Many of the parts on the DHC-5 are now special order, and can take weeks to arrive. Many parts are now obsolete, and thus require that we re-certify using a different part, and that can take weeks, if not months to accomplish, for something as simple as a windshield wiper motor. Serviceability is at an all-time low; realistically, you might only see 1, sometimes 2 aircraft available for SAR ops. The rest are grounded for lack of spare parts.

[Edited 2011-10-03 21:27:09]

[Edited 2011-10-03 21:28:19]

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 25): Ok, for starters, how are they going to increase Vne by 28%? They are proposing a minimally changed DHC-5 with new engines, and their proposed Buffalo can fly 28% faster than than the previous do not exceed speed. Answer that.

First off, I don't have to. They claim they can. If you don't believe it, it's up to you to prove they can't. I have yet to see that proof.

Second, Vne is not necessarily the maximum speed of which the aircraft is capable. There are plenty of planes that have more than enough power to exceed Vne in level flight. More power happens to be very useful for stuff like climbing, and decreasing takeoff length. It's not always used to achieve maximum speed.

Vne is the never exceed speed. It is the speed at, above which, some structural damage may occur. It is set by the weakest bit of structure, not the strongest so it could be a door or a prop or anything. The thing is, you obviously don't know...and neither do I. Viking does, and they say they can increase the maximum speed to 300kts.

For all I know, Vne is the fastest they ever felt they needed to test the aircraft to. Maybe it was to keep pilots from overstressing the engines. The possibilities are endless.

What this means is Vne in itself has nothing to do with the speed of the aircraft in relation to the power available.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 25): And did anyone forget to mention that all of the tooling, and plans for the DHC-5 no longer exists? Viking Air will have to reverse engineer the DHC-5 from scratch and then draw the aircraft up in CAD. Big undertaking here, something Viking Air might not have the capabilities to do.

They did just fine with the newly certified and nicely selling Twin Otter. So far, no problems.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 25): Viking Air has said they are looking into pressurizing the Buffalo. Unless I am sorely mistaken, it is difficult to pressurize a square box, without building a structure so thick, it becomes extremely heavy.

But they are not yet offering a pressurized Buffalo for the FWSAR task. As for the square fuse, Cessna managed to pressurize the 210 and 337...both with rectangular cross sections...without seriously impacting weight. While not ideal, (and there are actually few pressurized aircraft with perfectly round fuselages), it's not necessarily a deal breaker.

The SFC of the CT64-820-4 engines on the current buffalo is 0.486 lb/shp/hr, the PW 150 has an SFC of 0.433...so, in fact, less thirsty.

The Pratt also has a significantly higher TB0. True, it is heavier...by around a couple of hundred pounds per side...not exactly breaking the bank. I don't think the extra power will have any effort dragging itself into the air.

As for range? Again, ask Viking. I have no idea what they forecast for range or what they'll do to get it. They may do something like Alenia did when they created the c-27 out of the G222...by basically upgrading the engines, (with much more powerful ones), and avionics...and somehow getting a bunch more range out of it...almost exactly what Viking is planning for the Buffalo.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26): First off, I don't have to. They claim they can. If you don't believe it, it's up to you to prove they can't. I have yet to see that proof.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26): Second, Vne is not necessarily the maximum speed of which the aircraft is capable. There are plenty of planes that have more than enough power to exceed Vne in level flight. More power happens to be very useful for stuff like climbing, and decreasing takeoff length. It's not always used to achieve maximum speed. Vne is the never exceed speed. It is the speed at, above which, some structural damage may occur. It is set by the weakest bit of structure, not the strongest so it could be a door or a prop or anything. The thing is, you obviously don't know...and neither do I. Viking does, and they say they can increase the maximum speed to 300kts.

That's it. They claim that they can with a minimally changed DHC-5. All they are proposing in a nutshell is changing the engines and replacing the avionics. They will have to do a major redesign of certain areas of the aircraft (such as the wings and control surfaces, and rear tail) in order to accommodate the significantly higher maximum speed. This will require major recertification work with the major authorities (Transport Canada and the FAA in particular). Viking Air does not have that kind of experience with major recertification; they got away during the certification of the new Twin Otter by demonstrating that the aircraft was very minimally changed. Switching avionics, replacing engines, and redesigning control surfaces and the wings is not a minor change.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26): They did just fine with the newly certified and nicely selling Twin Otter. So far, no problems.

Yeah, by doing the certification work with a crashed Twin Otter that they rebuilt.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26): But they are not yet offering a pressurized Buffalo for the FWSAR task. As for the square fuse, Cessna managed to pressurize the 210 and 337...both with rectangular cross sections...without seriously impacting weight. While not ideal, (and there are actually few pressurized aircraft with perfectly round fuselages), it's not necessarily a deal breaker.

They area. Viking Air is offering to pressurize either the entire fuselage, or part of the fuselage of the DHC-5NG.

If you haven't noticed on the DHC-5, the fuselage structure was never designed to be pressurized. Major structural reinforcement and redesign will have to take place in order to get some level of pressurization on the DHC-5, by then it becomes a whole new airplane.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26): The SFC of the CT64-820-4 engines on the current buffalo is 0.486 lb/shp/hr, the PW 150 has an SFC of 0.433...so, in fact, less thirsty.

Viking Air is detuning the engine by 40% according to their posted specs. Factor that into your SFC calculations.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26): The Pratt also has a significantly higher TB0. True, it is heavier...by around a couple of hundred pounds per side Which affects structure, which will require beefing up... [quote=JoeCanuck,reply=26]As for range? Again, ask Viking. I have no idea what they forecast for range or what they'll do to get it. They may do something like Alenia did when they created the c-27 out of the G222...by basically upgrading the engines, (with much more powerful ones), and avionics...and somehow getting a bunch more range out of it...almost exactly what Viking is planning for the Buffalo.

Alenia did major redesign work on the C-27J from the G.222. There is a fuel tank in the center wing section that was not in the G.222; this adds 1000 litres to the fuel capacity of the C-27J and it does not affect interior space. Not to mention the higher MTOW (by around 2500kg).

New motors on the DHC-5 won't cut it for a Canada-wide FWSAR machine. If a new variant of the DHC-5 included a fully pressurized flight compartment, 300+ KIAS VNE and greater range - awesome (re: an actual replacement for the SAR tasked C-130's). I am all for Canadian innovation, just show us a military-grade airplane that is flying and it can compete in the bid. Just don't whine that you aren't getting a piece of the pie without anything on the table.

What most people are NOT understanding is that the FWSAR replacement project is aimed at replacing all of the CFs FWSAR aircraft. This includes our E/H Model Hercules. The DHC-5 is ill suited to conduct SAR in the rest of Canada - mainly due to its slow speed, unpressurized fuselage and poor range.

17 new DHC-5's would not cut it for Canadian FWSAR. We would need at least double that amount (for double the cost) and the increased infrastructure costs of establishing new FWSAR MOBs in every province, not to mention the maintenance and crewing costs involved.

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... and we got a lot of those in the CF already, let's not add to that list...

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27): What most people are NOT understanding is that the FWSAR replacement project is aimed at replacing all of the CFs FWSAR aircraft. This includes our E/H Model Hercules. The DHC-5 is ill suited to conduct SAR in the rest of Canada - mainly due to its slow speed, unpressurized fuselage and poor range. 17 new DHC-5's would not cut it for Canadian FWSAR. We would need at least double that amount (for double the cost) and the increased infrastructure costs of establishing new FWSAR MOBs in every province, not to mention the maintenance and crewing costs involved.

Don't always agree with ThePointBlank, but in this case I do. The DHC-5NG is not a good solution for ROC, although in the coastal areas of BC it could work. But it makes more sense to identify a common fleet of currently-available a/c to equip the FWSAR role, and the C-27J seems, on the face of it, to be the best solution available.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28): C-27J seems, on the face of it, to be the best solution available.

Did Bombardier ever offer a Dash8-400 variant for this role? To my untrained eye, there doesn't seem to be much between the C-27J and Q400.

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 29): Did Bombardier ever offer a Dash8-400 variant for this role? To my untrained eye, there doesn't seem to be much between the C-27J and Q400.

The rear loading ramp is a big one, I would think . It would be a significant effort for BBD to come up with something like that for the Q. Also the ability to operate from primitive strips.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27): That's it. They claim that they can with a minimally changed DHC-5. All they are proposing in a nutshell is changing the engines and replacing the avionics. They will have to do a major redesign of certain areas of the aircraft (such as the wings and control surfaces, and rear tail) in order to accommodate the significantly higher maximum speed.

Not necessarily. You are assuming those are the weakest points resulting in the current Vne...the fact is, you don't know what it would take to increase the Vne...Viking does. So when it comes to contract time, either they put up or shut up.

Until they are proven wrong, which you haven't come close to doing, they are the experts.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27): They area. Viking Air is offering to pressurize either the entire fuselage, or part of the fuselage of the DHC-5NG.

All or part or none. Again ...you're mostly blowing smoke...you don't have a clue how much pressure differential the current fuse could take, much less how much strengthening it might need.

What advantage is it to Viking to claim specs they can't produce? Do you have any proof they are lying about any part of their proposal?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27): Viking Air is detuning the engine by 40% according to their posted specs. Factor that into your SFC calculations.

Well, lower power settings usually mean a smaller fuel burn. The PW150 is generations ahead of the current Buffalo engines...they are significantly more efficient in every flight regime, as well as more reliable.

Those extra 2000 hp can still be used for emergency power if required.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27): Alenia did major redesign work on the C-27J from the G.222. There is a fuel tank in the center wing section that was not in the G.222; this adds 1000 litres to the fuel capacity of the C-27J and it does not affect interior space. Not to mention the higher MTOW (by around 2500kg).

So only Alenia is able to extend range by adding fuel tanks or increase MTOW?

Again...do have anything more than your guesses and suppositions that Viking can't do what they say they can do? Do you have such expertise with the Buffalo airframe that you can categorically prove them liars?

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean they are wrong.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27): Yeah, by doing the certification work with a crashed Twin Otter that they rebuilt.

So? How is it even slightly relevant how they certified the twin otter? What it does show is that they can take an out of production airframe, improve it, certify it and produce it, thus putting another red herring to rest.

If you want to compare the c-27 to the proposed Buffalo NG, you have more than enough information to compare them on most data points.

What you don't have is any proof Viking can't actually produce the plane they say, regardless if you understand how they plan on doing it or not.

Viking can either produce or not. Whether or not it is suitable is an entirely separate issue than whether or not the plane they propose is possible.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31): Not necessarily. You are assuming those are the weakest points resulting in the current Vne...the fact is, you don't know what it would take to increase the Vne...Viking does. So when it comes to contract time, either they put up or shut up. Until they are proven wrong, which you haven't come close to doing, they are the experts.

They are the weakest points on any aircraft when it comes to Vne.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31): All or part or none. Again ...you're mostly blowing smoke...you don't have a clue how much pressure differential the current fuse could take, much less how much strengthening it might need. What advantage is it to Viking to claim specs they can't produce? Do you have any proof they are lying about any part of their proposal?

1. Not much; the airframe isn't designed to be pressurized. There are aircraft in the past where the fuselage was partially pressurized.

2. Umm... a lot. $3.4 billion dollars is enough incentive to do so. I know for a fact that practically all of the original drawings, and tooling for the DHC-5 was destroyed in the 1980's. So where did Viking Air come up with its assumptions, without any original drawings?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31): Well, lower power settings usually mean a smaller fuel burn. The PW150 is generations ahead of the current Buffalo engines...they are significantly more efficient in every flight regime, as well as more reliable. Those extra 2000 hp can still be used for emergency power if required.

I want to see Viking Air's projections that show that they can increase the maximum speed by 28% without increasing the power required from the engines. To achieve the increase in speed they are claiming, there needs to be a 62% increase in power required (approximately the square of the linear speed increase according to simple fluid dynamics assuming more-or-less constant drag coefficient). Unless Viking Air significantly cleans up the aerodynamics of the DHC-5 to that of a fighter jet (which will be a major redesign), its not possible according to physics.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31): So only Alenia is able to extend range by adding fuel tanks or increase MTOW? Again...do have anything more than your guesses and suppositions that Viking can't do what they say they can do? Do you have such expertise with the Buffalo airframe that you can categorically prove them liars? Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean they are wrong.

I know enough, and the military community in Canada knows enough that Viking Air is blowing a lot of hot air. No one in the SAR community is taking Viking Air's proposal seriously.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 31): So? How is it even slightly relevant how they certified the twin otter? What it does show is that they can take an out of production airframe, improve it, certify it and produce it, thus putting another red herring to rest. If you want to compare the c-27 to the proposed Buffalo NG, you have more than enough information to compare them on most data points. What you don't have is any proof Viking can't actually produce the plane they say, regardless if you understand how they plan on doing it or not. Viking can either produce or not. Whether or not it is suitable is an entirely separate issue than whether or not the plane they propose is possible.

1. For the Twin Otter, some of the original tooling and drawings already existed. Viking Air demonstrated that their Twin Otter was minimally changed compared to the original Twin Otter to the aviation authorities, which made the certification process a lot simpler and shorter. Many of the original suppliers that supplied parts for the Twin Otter are still producing those parts. Not so with the DHC-5. All of the original tooling and drawings are gone. I know for a fact that Goodrich doesn't support or make the landing gear on the DHC-5 for a while. There are a lot of things on the DHC-5 that have become not supportable because the supplier that supplied it have either gone out of business, or have stopped making them altogether.

Oh, and did anyone actually look up of some of the companies that Viking Air lists as being a major backer? Field Aviation left the DHC-5 overhaul business years ago; they were the only shop that did it. In fact, they left the business despite the DND having a long term contract with them for the Buffalo overhauls, leaving us scrambling to find a replacement company.

2. How can you talk about performance of an airplane that is not even designed on paper yet? All we have is a nice shiny brochure to go upon with no engineering work done, compared to a real airplane that is already flying.


CF procurement isn't a make-work system for Canadian industries.

Contracts should go to the most competent and comprehensive bidder that actually satisfies the needs of the forces. NOW. Not in 5 years with a myriad of caveats and addendums. NOW. Like TODAY. If nothing currently satisfies the needs, then that is a different story.

The CF is charged with saving our collective asses, not cultivating Canadian business. I don’t think we should be sacrificing Canadian lives to create Canadian jobs. The lives are so much more valuable.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 32): 2. Umm... a lot. $3.4 billion dollars is enough incentive to do so. I know for a fact that practically all of the original drawings, and tooling for the DHC-5 was destroyed in the 1980's. So where did Viking Air come up with its assumptions, without any original drawings?

You don't think Viking might be found out at some point if they couldn't produce? The secret would probably get out eventually and Viking then wouldn't get any of the 3.4 billion if the plane didn't perform...another red herring.

So you don't actually know that ALL of the original drawings, (and all copies), have been destroyed and you don't know what drawings Viking has yet you ca state categorically what Viking can and can't do...not logical, I'm afraid.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 32): I want to see Viking Air's projections that show that they can increase the maximum speed by 28% without increasing the power required from the engines. To achieve the increase in speed they are claiming, there needs to be a 62% increase in power required (approximately the square of the linear speed increase according to simple fluid dynamics assuming more-or-less constant drag coefficient). Unless Viking Air significantly cleans up the aerodynamics of the DHC-5 to that of a fighter jet (which will be a major redesign), its not possible according to physics.

You keep making the assumption that the only thing that can limit a plane to a certain Vne is drag at max power...which is not always the case.

That's the only way your formula works...but it's not the only possible formula. Do you know for a fact that Vne of the Buffalo is drag limited to 235kts at maximum power in level flight? Or is the 235kt limitation in place due to other factors?

You do know that the Vne is the same if the engines are producing no power in a dive, right?

If there is power in reserve, then your formula means exactly nothing.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 32): I know enough, and the military community in Canada knows enough that Viking Air is blowing a lot of hot air. No one in the SAR community is taking Viking Air's proposal seriously.

It seems you might not if you haven't figured out the concept that Vne isn't always the drag limited speed at max power.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 32): 1. For the Twin Otter, some of the original tooling and drawings already existed. Viking Air demonstrated that their Twin Otter was minimally changed compared to the original Twin Otter to the aviation authorities, which made the certification process a lot simpler and shorter

Some...but not all of the drawings and they built the tooling. They changed the engines and the avionics as well as other changes...much like they claim they can do for the Buffalo.

As for the gear, has Goodrich said they wouldn't reopen production? Is it impossible for someone else to build the gear? Do you think it is possible that Viking has considered that they might need gear for their plane?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 32): 2. How can you talk about performance of an airplane that is not even designed on paper yet? All we have is a nice shiny brochure to go upon with no engineering work done, compared to a real airplane that is already flying.

Really....? This again...? You must mean paper planes like every single plane that has ever been produced. They all started as paper planes with calculated performance parameters.

In this case, they actually have planes flying around they can base their calculations on. What they have is significantly more than paper planes.

Do you really think that performance can't be calculated before hand? Better tell that to Boeing, Airbus, BBd, Emb...and, well, everybody who makes planes. You might as well ask how can Airbus talk about the performance of the 350? How can BBD talk about the performance of the CSeries? Those are just paper airplanes too.

It's the same way Viking can talk about the performance of the Buffalo...and Viking has the advantage of the plane they are basing the improvements on is actually flying today.

You have yet to show me anything more than guesses and supposition and assumptions that Viking can't do what they say. If you don't like the specs, that's a different story...but you're saying they can't make those specs without the backing of a single fact.

You make sense when you talk about the advantages of one plane over the other. Fixating on whether or not Viking can make the NG do what they say is irrelevant.

Either they can or they can't and nobody except the folks at Viking know for sure. Either they are lying or telling the truth.

The truth will come out in the wash when they have to back up their promises. Arguing that they can't do it is a completely unsustainable position and irrelevant.

The only relevant discussion is about whether or not the BuffaloNG would be suitable for the role.

If there is proper vetting, Viking should be found and it they'll cease to be a problem.

As to whether or not all SAR people hate the Buffalo in that role, at least one person in the below forum, (who claims to have 15 experience at 442 squadron with the Buffalo), is a fan;

http://www.aviastar.org/air/canada/dehavilland_buffalo.php

[Edited 2011-10-06 22:28:39]

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 33): You don't think Viking might be found out at some point if they couldn't produce? The secret would probably get out eventually and Viking then wouldn't get any of the 3.4 billion if the plane didn't perform...another red herring. So you don't actually know that ALL of the original drawings, (and all copies), have been destroyed and you don't know what drawings Viking has yet you ca state categorically what Viking can and can't do...not logical, I'm afraid.

We do know that ALL of the original drawings of the DHC-5 were destroyed; Boeing is the company that was responsible for that move. Years ago when Boeing bought De Havilland Canada, Boeing destroying the jigs and plans for the Twin Otter, Buffalo and many other types, except for the Dash 8.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 33): Really....? This again...? You must mean paper planes like every single plane that has ever been produced. They all started as paper planes with calculated performance parameters. n this case, they actually have planes flying around they can base their calculations on. What they have is significantly more than paper planes. Do you really think that performance can't be calculated before hand? Better tell that to Boeing, Airbus, BBd, Emb...and, well, everybody who makes planes. You might as well ask how can Airbus talk about the performance of the 350? How can BBD talk about the performance of the CSeries? Those are just paper airplanes too.

Someone's gone and done some major engineering work, design proposals before they came up with their new designs back up by some heavy duty design process. Viking Air hasn't gone through that process. There are serious technical issues with what they claim.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 33): You keep making the assumption that the only thing that can limit a plane to a certain Vne is drag at max power...which is not always the case. That's the only way your formula works...but it's not the only possible formula. Do you know for a fact that Vne of the Buffalo is drag limited to 235kts at maximum power in level flight? Or is the 235kt limitation in place due to other factors? You do know that the Vne is the same if the engines are producing no power in a dive, right? If there is power in reserve, then your formula means exactly nothing.

It's a drag limitation according to the DHC-5's type certificate. According to the Transport Canada certificate, you may not exceed 225 knots IAS at 5000".

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 33): Some...but not all of the drawings and they built the tooling. They changed the engines and the avionics as well as other changes...much like they claim they can do for the Buffalo. As for the gear, has Goodrich said they wouldn't reopen production? Is it impossible for someone else to build the gear? Do you think it is possible that Viking has considered that they might need gear for their plane?

1. They had enough, plus they were able to certify on the basis of a minor modification. In fact, the DHC-6 400 is registered under the same type certificate for the original DHC-6's, which was originally issued by Transport Canada in 1966. A small modification has a different certification process compared to a full blown re-certification.

2. Same engine type; PWC PT-6's.

3. Goodrich said they will not support or make the landing gear. Not surprising; Goodrich stopped supporting the landing gear over a decade ago.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 33): As to whether or not all SAR people hate the Buffalo in that role, at least one person in the below forum, (who claims to have 15 experience at 442 squadron with the Buffalo), is a fan; http://www.aviastar.org/air/canada/d...o.php

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23889.625.html

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34): We do know that ALL of the original drawings of the DHC-5 were destroyed; Boeing is the company that was responsible for that move. Years ago when Boeing bought De Havilland Canada, Boeing destroying the jigs and plans for the Twin Otter, Buffalo and many other types, except for the Dash 8.

So the plans and jigs were destroyed so it's impossible to restart production...except for the example of the twin otter which, you say, had the very same thing happen to it and it's doing just swell in production as we speak.

Apparently, it's not impossible since Viking themselves have proven they can do the process.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34): Someone's gone and done some major engineering work, design proposals before they came up with their new designs back up by some heavy duty design process. Viking Air hasn't gone through that process. There are serious technical issues with what they claim.

...and yet somehow, they managed to get production going again with the twin otter. How do you know exactly how much work Viking has done? What special inside information do you have about what Viking has done. My guess is you actually don't have any facts to back up your assertions and you are merely guessing.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34): It's a drag limitation according to the DHC-5's type certificate. According to the Transport Canada certificate, you may not exceed 225 knots IAS at 5000".

That doesn't necessarily mean it's drag limited at maximum power...and that doesn't say drag limited...so your formula is still seriously flawed. You just gave another way to say Vne. You seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between Vne and the maximum speed possible with the airframe at maximum power at level flight.

Even the wording gives a clue; MAY not exceed...which certainly implies it's possible.

While it is possible for them to be the same thing, the definitions are quite different. One is the speed above which some structural damage may occur and one is the maximum speed attainable at full throttle in level flight. So Vne doesn't have anything to do with drag or power, and your formula has everything to do with drag and power.

Edit...I found what I was looking for...Vne is "never exceed speed" and the "maximum speed in level flight at maximum continuous power" is Vh. Vh is drag limited.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34): 1. They had enough, plus they were able to certify on the basis of a minor modification. In fact, the DHC-6 400 is registered under the same type certificate for the original DHC-6's, which was originally issued by Transport Canada in 1966. A small modification has a different certification process compared to a full blown re-certification.

Every Twin Otter is registered under the same type certificate...regardless of the models and the changes to them...that doesn't change the fact that every model still has to be certified separately.

Every change has to be certified, including the manufacturing process, the items changed and the application of those items. That means that even though the engines, etc., are certified, they had to be certified for the twin otter...regardless of how similar they seem.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34): 2. Same engine type; PWC PT-6's.

But those engines weren't certified for the Twin Otter. Viking had to have them certified for the airframe since, for one, the new engines are full FADEC and the old ones weren't, just as they had to have the instruments certified for this application even though they have been certified in other applications.

Viking also had to get their production method certified...and since you say they did this all without a single drawing or original jig, I'd say that's a good stepping stone to doing the Buffalo.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34): 3. Goodrich said they will not support or make the landing gear. Not surprising; Goodrich stopped supporting the landing gear over a decade ago.

Viking says they can make the plane...I imagine they probably realise they need landing gear...you don't think they would have thought of that very basic issue?

Imagine the red faces at Viking if someone points out at their presentation that they forgot to put landing gear on their aircraft.

Viking will have to show they can produce this plane with the specs they say they can for anyone to offer them a contract. They have offered to upgrade current Buffalo as product demonstrators. If they can't do it, then tough nut for them...but, you really haven't presented anything logical or factual that demonstrates Viking can't do what they say they can.

You obviously prefer the C-27 for the FWSAR role...which is fine...many people do. If you think the Buffalo in any incarnation is inadequate, fine again. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your comparisons on the relative capabilities have some merit.

You just haven't presented anything with proves Viking cannot do what they say they can.

Like it or not, there has never been and never will be a military procurement without political overtones...it happens every single time with every military on the planet. The DOD, including the generals, are no less politicians than any MP.

History, including recent history, is rife with examples of militaries, including the Canadian military, making terrible acquisition decisions, and every single time, those in power insisted it was the best deal for the best and most suitable equipment. Remember that wonderful DoD idea to sent our troops to Afghanistan in jungle cammo and they had to use spray paint to make them reasonably useful...?

[Edited 2011-10-07 23:44:40]

Something just appeared on an Ottawa Citizen blog suggesting that Boeing is now interested in bidding with the V-22. Honestly this seems like the best idea to come out of FWSAR to this point. More costly yes, but reducing the number of types, airframes and the need to do things like airlift helicopters to the north is all for the good. And the aircraft has, IMO a lot of potential for integrating into a fairly large number of roles within the CF (especially in terms of the on again off again amphibious role of the JSS and its follow up assault ships).

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30): The rear loading ramp is a big one, I would think . It would be a significant effort for BBD to come up with something like that for the Q. Also the ability to operate from primitive strips.

The Q400 can operate from primitive airstrips. Hydro Quebec does it with theirs all the time.

The rear ramp would be a challenge, however.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 35): So the plans and jigs were destroyed so it's impossible to restart production...except for the example of the twin otter which, you say, had the very same thing happen to it and it's doing just swell in production as we speak. Apparently, it's not impossible since Viking themselves have proven they can do the process.

Some of the tooling and jigs and paperwork relating to the DHC-6 survived. There was enough to go on for restarting production of the DHC-6, plus a market for the type. The DHC-5, not so. All of the tooling, drawings, etc were destroyed, first by De Havilland Canada, followed up by Boeing.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 35): ...and yet somehow, they managed to get production going again with the twin otter. How do you know exactly how much work Viking has done? What special inside information do you have about what Viking has done. My guess is you actually don't have any facts to back up your assertions and you are merely guessing.

All they have done is restart production of a type where there was enough existing tooling and design paperwork to do so.

If Viking Air was serious about modernizing and restarting the DHC-5, and they felt there was a market for the type, Viking Air should do so at their own expense and with their own funding. The lack of movement on that for the past 3 years since Viking Air proposed the DHC-5NG is telling enough that they weren't really serious about restarting production.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 35): Every Twin Otter is registered under the same type certificate...regardless of the models and the changes to them...that doesn't change the fact that every model still has to be certified separately. Every change has to be certified, including the manufacturing process, the items changed and the application of those items. That means that even though the engines, etc., are certified, they had to be certified for the twin otter...regardless of how similar they seem.

What Viking Air is proposing is a major design change; in effect a new aircraft. The certification process for a new aircraft type and a modification are totally different processes. Viking Air certified the DHC-6 series 400 on the basis of a minor modification; the number of flight hours required and the tests are less strenuous compared to certification of a new aircraft type, which would require more lengthy flight hours, structural tests, etc. Viking Air is hoping the certification process for the DHC-5NG would be similar to the certification process of the DHC-6 series 400, when in reality, Viking Air would have to certify on the basis on a new aircraft type, much like the certification process of the various Boeing 737 series. There is no way any aviation authority (Transport Canada, FAA, EASA, etc) would allow Viking Air to certify the DHC-5NG on the basis of a minor modification.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 35): But those engines weren't certified for the Twin Otter. Viking had to have them certified for the airframe since, for one, the new engines are full FADEC and the old ones weren't, just as they had to have the instruments certified for this application even though they have been certified in other applications. Viking also had to get their production method certified...and since you say they did this all without a single drawing or original jig, I'd say that's a good stepping stone to doing the Buffalo.

Have you looked at the type certificate yet? Here's what the Transport Canada type certificate says:

Quote: The Series 400 is the fourth production series of the DHC-6 type. It differs from the Series 300 primarily on the basis of: 1. PT6A-34 engine in place of the -27 engines; 2.Fully integrated Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) in place of legacy instruments; 3. Upgraded electrical system; and, 4.Cabin safety complies with later design standard, see "Certification Basis". For Aircraft Nose Configuration, see NOTE 7. All Technical Data under "Series 300" and "Data Pertinent to All Models" is applicable to the Series 400 except as follows:

See what Viking Air has done? They certified the Series 400 as being a minor modification of the Series 300. Because the Series 400 was built "under an update" of the original Twin Otter type certificate, the process is less rigorous compared to a new aircraft type.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 35): Viking says they can make the plane...I imagine they probably realise they need landing gear...you don't think they would have thought of that very basic issue? Imagine the red faces at Viking if someone points out at their presentation that they forgot to put landing gear on their aircraft. Viking will have to show they can produce this plane with the specs they say they can for anyone to offer them a contract. They have offered to upgrade current Buffalo as product demonstrators. If they can't do it, then tough nut for them...but, you really haven't presented anything logical or factual that demonstrates Viking can't do what they say they can.

Then why haven't they done so on their own dime? If Viking Air says there is a market for the DHC-5NG to justify restarting production, why haven't they done so for the past 3 years? Viking Air said 5 years ago that restarting production of the DHC-5 was 'not justifiable' economically. What has changed since then, besides a major DND competition? Given that there are no orders are in yet, the full design cost of the plane would have to be financed on our order - cause there is no telling if someone else will buy the NG edition, and the numbers we might buy would probably be the only ones in existence.

Defence procurement is not a 'make work' system for Canadian industries. Using defence procurement funds to build-up an industry which cannot remain self-sustaining at that capacity after the contract is a big gamble that could lead us to having strategic orphans. When a contract with DND runs its course, the business is left with nothing to sustain itself, and it goes under (in the case of major systems such as vehicles or aircraft, this creates a situation where DND must now live with grossly inflated lifecycle costs related to a system with no industrial support). A couple of good examples of this is the LSVW/Western Star plant in BC and the HLVW/Steyr plant in Ontario. Both of them shut down and closed up after the last examples were delivered.

The general consensus, with which I am in agreement, is that there is no suitable Canadian transport aircraft available for the Search and Rescue role in a reasonable amount of time and for a reasonable price, be it a DHC-5NG or a variant of the Dash 8.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 35): You just haven't presented anything with proves Viking cannot do what they say they can.

The fact that they haven't done anything with their proposal for 3 years says enough. If they were serious about the proposal, they would be doing something with their proposal. All so far they are doing is lobbying the government to just give them the contract, regardless of their own capabilities.


Remember - there are time constraints for this purchase.

The airframes we currently have are getting old & tired - showing cracks where there shouldn't be any - they need to be replaced sooner VS later. How long do you think it will take Viking Air to tool up, design, and certify a new DHC-5NG, and deliver it to us? There are no existing production lines, there are no frame jigs from which to build these new planes... it will take time and a lot of money to get a DHC-5NG in the air & I do not think we have the time it takes to do it. The existing SAR aircraft are increasingly becoming unservicable and positively ancient; the SAR tasked C-130E's and H's were originally delivered in the 1960's and 1970's, and are well past their design lives, and thus showing their age through cracks and warped airframes. The current DHC-5's were delivered in the 1960's, and are increasingly unserviceable (ours happen to be unique among the worldwide DHC-5 fleet), with at best 2 aircraft available, and sometimes none available. The current FWSAR aircraft aircraft are at the end of their current service lives and is living on borrowed time, and the political games being played by companies like Viking Air is only serving to delay the program even further.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 35): Like it or not, there has never been and never will be a military procurement without political overtones...it happens every single time with every military on the planet. The DOD, including the generals, are no less politicians than any MP. History, including recent history, is rife with examples of militaries, including the Canadian military, making terrible acquisition decisions, and every single time, those in power insisted it was the best deal for the best and most suitable equipment. Remember that wonderful DoD idea to sent our troops to Afghanistan in jungle cammo and they had to use spray paint to make them reasonably useful...?

So your argument is that we've made procurement mistakes buying unproven equipment from foreign companies. To even things out, we should hire a Canadian company without even a production line open to provide us with aircraft that don't even meet our needs. Right...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 35): You obviously prefer the C-27 for the FWSAR role...which is fine...many people do. If you think the Buffalo in any incarnation is inadequate, fine again. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your comparisons on the relative capabilities have some merit.

The C-27J is already a compromise. The 'Gold standard' would be more C-130J's that are kitted out like the US Coast Guard's HC-130's. The SOR is based on a 1/3 Buffalo and 2/3 Hercules requirement. Most SARtechs would state that the only real replacement for FWSAR is the C-130J. We are already comprising by downgrading to a twin engine aircraft.

A ramp would be an interesting exercise for the Q400. It already has the upswept shape in the rear, that looks like it could hold a ramp.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 38): Then why haven't they done so on their own dime? If Viking Air says there is a market for the DHC-5NG to justify restarting production, why haven't they done so for the past 3 years? Viking Air said 5 years ago that restarting production of the DHC-5 was 'not justifiable' economically. What has changed since then, besides a major DND competition? Given that there are no orders are in yet, the full design cost of the plane would have to be financed on our order - cause there is no telling if someone else will buy the NG edition, and the numbers we might buy would probably be the only ones in existence.

Name one manufacturer that produced a plane without a launch customer.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 38): The fact that they haven't done anything with their proposal for 3 years says enough. If they were serious about the proposal, they would be doing something with their proposal. All so far they are doing is lobbying the government to just give them the contract, regardless of their own capabilities.

Actually, it doesn't say anything. Did lockheed build their prototype f-35 for free? Boeing the C-17? the list goes on and on and on.

Viking is offering to prove they can do it by upgrading the current Buffalos to the NG standard. They've offered to put up or shut up...care to take that challenge?


Merely saying they haven't built it yet so it can't be built is not even close to logic. If you are so sure they can't build it, prove it...after all, it's the cornerstone to your assertion...you must be able to back it up.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 38): So your argument is that we've made procurement mistakes buying unproven equipment from foreign companies. To even things out, we should hire a Canadian company without even a production line open to provide us with aircraft that don't even meet our needs. Right...

...but it's ok to buy unproven aircraft from the USA without a production line, years late, without a contract, (an mou is a far way from a contract), has no fixed price, (the US is legally forced to sell planes for at least as much as they pay so since their price isn't fixed, neither is the Canadian), isn't meeting spec, other countries are talking about dropping, the host country is talking about dropping one of the models, that's much, much better....right.

Your production line schtick is so old and misguided, even you must be tired of hearing it. Every plane starts as a paper plane. Every plane starts without any production line....every single time. Why you think this is not normal is beyond me...but it's the way things are done.

Every single plane is unproven until it's proven...just like the F-35...which is far from proven but is still being offered.

On one hand you say that all drawings and jigs for all Viking DHC aircraft were destroyed, including the Twin Otter, so it's impossible for Viking to restart production. Then you say that Viking had some drawings and tools for the twin otter.

You still have not shown one teeny, weeny shred of proof, (that's facts and stuff), that Viking cannot to what they say they can...not one shred. You make claims based on supposition, guessing, theories, (some of which I have already proven misguided), what some guy said...but no proof.

If you have any proof that Viking categorically cannot build the Buffalo to their specs, please let us, the media and the DoD procurement office know. I would be very interested. Even Alenia would be interested. It would save a lot of people a lot of time and would be the best and fastest way to get the Buffalo off the table and it would ensure the C-27 was a shoe in.

I find it interesting that the main competitor hasn't actually come out and said that Viking cannot build the plane. One would think that, being an aerospace company, they would have the expertise and they certainly have the sales impetus, to reveal Viking's dirty lies.

Proof...where is it?

If the Buffalo is unsuitable, fine...it's no skin off of my back. I don't have any part of Viking and would see no personal gain if their offer is chosen. If it can't do the job, it can't do the job...simple as that...just like any other procurement.

...but to go on and on about whether or not they can make the plane is a hopeless red herring, needlessly muddies the waters...and is completely pointless.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 39): A ramp would be an interesting exercise for the Q400. It already has the upswept shape in the rear, that looks like it could hold a ramp.

Have fun with that. Beyond the fact that the Dash 8 has insufficient range, is not maneuverable, and none of the CF's pallets can fit in it. It is not designed to perform low level search and aerial delivery in below marginal VFR, at night, in mountainous terrain. Period. Could it be used? That isn't the point. Give these crews a fleet of gliders and they'd figure something out.

The Canadian public should be outraged that the purchase of the airframes tasked with their potential rescue is being hijacked by private industry's interests.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 39): Name one manufacturer that produced a plane without a launch customer.

That's it. None. Zero. If we bought the DHC-5NG, we would be the launch customer with all of the risks if the aircraft fails to meet delivery timing, and specs. We've been there, done that, to varying degrees of success. For a basic transport-type aircraft, we don't want the risk.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 39): Actually, it doesn't say anything. Did lockheed build their prototype f-35 for free? Boeing the C-17? the list goes on and on and on. Viking is offering to prove they can do it by upgrading the current Buffalos to the NG standard. They've offered to put up or shut up...care to take that challenge?

Yes... the current Buffalo's that are already worn out, running out of spare parts, technically obsolete, and are already unique in the small DHC-5 community.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 39): ...but it's ok to buy unproven aircraft from the USA without a production line, years late, without a contract, (an mou is a far way from a contract), has no fixed price, (the US is legally forced to sell planes for at least as much as they pay so since their price isn't fixed, neither is the Canadian), isn't meeting spec, other countries are talking about dropping, the host country is talking about dropping one of the models, that's much, much better....right. Your production line schtick is so old and misguided, even you must be tired of hearing it. Every plane starts as a paper plane. Every plane starts without any production line....every single time. Why you think this is not normal is beyond me...but it's the way things are done. Every single plane is unproven until it's proven...just like the F-35...which is far from proven but is still being offered. On one hand you say that all drawings and jigs for all Viking DHC aircraft were destroyed, including the Twin Otter, so it's impossible for Viking to restart production. Then you say that Viking had some drawings and tools for the twin otter. You still have not shown one teeny, weeny shred of proof, (that's facts and stuff), that Viking cannot to what they say they can...not one shred. You make claims based on supposition, guessing, theories, (some of which I have already proven misguided), what some guy said...but no proof. If you have any proof that Viking categorically cannot build the Buffalo to their specs, please let us, the media and the DoD procurement office know. I would be very interested. Even Alenia would be interested. It would save a lot of people a lot of time and would be the best and fastest way to get the Buffalo off the table and it would ensure the C-27 was a shoe in. I find it interesting that the main competitor hasn't actually come out and said that Viking cannot build the plane. One would think that, being an aerospace company, they would have the expertise and they certainly have the sales impetus, to reveal Viking's dirty lies.

Viking has no demonstrated ability to do major modifications and certify them. Zero. Lockheed Martin has the capabilities to design an aircraft from the ground up and get it flying. In the world of aircraft manufacturers, Viking Air is a mom-and-pop shop. They have no creditability and zero track record. They got no facility to build a DHC-5NG, and most of their supporters (Field Aviation and Kelowna Flightcraft) aren't known for good service and meeting budgets.

Viking did not modify the Twin Otter so that they are basically building the same airplane with some STC's so they didn't have to go through the certification program again. With what they are proposing for the DHC-5, it's a whole new aircraft, which require a major re-certification program.

If you want to build those new Buffalo NG's, you have to go back to the drawing board, CAD your old designs, make your modifications, build the new tools & jigs, build your prototype, get Air Safety to approve the prototype and then build your new plane.... so Viking is a long way off from building and delivering on any new order. Also, given that there are no orders are in yet, the full design cost of the plane would have to be financed on our order (meaning we take all of the financial risks) - as there is no telling if someone else will buy the NG edition.

Last time we bought something totally Canadian that did not meet requirements the military set out, we ended up with the LSVW (also known derisively as the Light, Squeaky Vehicle, Wheeled). This vehicle failed all of the requirements and tests until finally it passed trials; but only once they moved the testing location to Arizona. The vehicle's brakes squeak excessively (something never resolved), the engine is anemic and will never allow the vehicle to reach 80km/h on a highway under any conditions (besides downhill), the transmission is known for blowing up under heavy load, its too small, heater is too weak to heat the cab in the winter, and too hot in the summer, the electrical system is prone to catching fire if the vehicle is parked for extended periods, the fuel filter prematurely clogs for no good reason, the vehicle rusts prematurely, and the plastic liner in the fuel tank is prone to being eaten away by the diesel fuel... may I go on? There's way more.

Let's not repeat that experience.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 39): ...but to go on and on about whether or not they can make the plane is a hopeless red herring, needlessly muddies the waters...and is completely pointless.

Because companies like Viking Air have muddied the procurement process already; this was supposed to be an expedited procurement process with first deliveries in 2006! We should be having new airplanes right now on the tarmac! But we are stuck flying 40+ year old aircraft who's airframes are bent out of shape and showing cracks, and parts are scarce or nearly impossible to source, leading to cannibalization of other aircraft.

Viking Air's proposal 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. Viking Air is just trying to sell an airplane; they are trying to sell their version of our defence policy.

The quest continues.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...g-search-and-rescue-effort-372492/

Quote:
"Hopes of filling Canada's fixed-wing search and rescue (FWSAR) requirement to replace its aging de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalo fleet are driving would-be contractors to cement partnerships with local companies.

Canada's minister of public works, Rona Ambrose, who oversees defence procurement, says that her department has setup a new FWSAR secretariat to consult with industry on the project.

The creation of a new secretariat could be a sign that the moribund effort to replace the decrepit Buffalo is starting to gain momentum. Canada first signaled its intent to replace the antiquated twin-engined turboprop more than six years ago. The FWSAR programme will be a competitive procurement, Ambrose says. A 'fairness monitor' will work to ensure the competition is open and fair, she adds. The contract, when it is awarded, will include training and support for at least 20 years."


Here's hoping the selection and award do not take half as long as that.   

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40): Viking has no demonstrated ability to do major modifications and certify them.

The Twotter 400 I think shows that you are at least in some small, teeny weeny way, wrong.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40): In the world of aircraft manufacturers, Viking Air is a mom-and-pop shop.

Agree with that.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40): They have no creditability and zero track record.

I would think the 80 or so orders from around the world, last time I checked, would indicate that others think your head is in a dark place.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40): Viking did not modify the Twin Otter so that they are basically building the same airplane with some STC's so they didn't have to go through the certification program again.

Gee, completely new cockpit, revised engines, props, wing centre section (corrosion resistance, long a problem for the TO), use of composites in several areas. That quals as a mod in my view. But I guess I don't sit in as high a chair as some.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40): so Viking is a long way off from building and delivering on any new order

I agree that the Buff NG would be a big piece to chew on for Viking.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40): this was supposed to be an expedited procurement process with first deliveries in 2006!

More than likely this is due to DND's famous penchant for gold-plating everything.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 39): Your production line schtick is so old and misguided, even you must be tired of hearing it. Every plane starts as a paper plane. Every plane starts without any production line....every single time. Why you think this is not normal is beyond me...but it's the way things are done.

  

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 42): The Twotter 400 I think shows that you are at least in some small, teeny weeny way, wrong.

Look at the type certificate of the Twotter series 400 and come back to me on that.

Scratch that, here's the DHC-6 type certificate from Transport Canada, so we will look at it together:
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/...prv_type=TA&PARTS_NUM=&id_num=1145

4 major modifications listed; engine variant difference, EFIS, updated electrical systems and changes to cabin safety. Same type certificate as the DHC-6 100, 200 and 300 series. The series 400 was certified on the basis of being a minimally changed version of the DHC-6.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 42): Gee, completely new cockpit, revised engines, props, wing centre section (corrosion resistance, long a problem for the TO), use of composites in several areas. That quals as a mod in my view. But I guess I don't sit in as high a chair as some.

See the type certificate and come back to me on that. Nothing individually that could be done via a STC on an existing Twin Otter. The certification basis of the series 400 is a minimally changed version of existing DHC-6.

So in essence the DHC-6 series 400 is a new build DHC-6 with a number of STC's build from the start instead of being added on after the fact.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43): Scratch that, here's the DHC-6 type certificate from Transport Canada, so we will look at it together: http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/...prv_type=TA&PARTS_NUM=&id_num=1145

Can't argue with that, and I have to compliment you on your ferreting skills. Have looked at the FAA TC database looking for the TC for the -70 series DC-8s, which ,IIRC (although >40 years ago now) was also an STC. Although by anyone's definition a major mod.

But you win that point.

One thing I can say, larger scope, is that bureaucracies and bureaucrats sometimes do things that are contra-indicated. In my business the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. By law they are required to hold public hearings where a significant change to an operating license or condition has been applied for. I have seen in the past where no such hearings have been held and the application approved. I have also seen public hearings called for when the application is for what is, IMHO, a minor change, no safety implication.

And I really have no other explanation for this except to say it is most likely internal politics.

The TO 400 acceptance in the marketplace is for real, though. 80+ sales to date and going.

As for Viking and the Buff NG, a non-starter. No range, limited payload, trying to pressurize the sucker, good luck. And an orphan. The only thing it really has going for it is "low and slow". The Spartan is probably a good choice although LockMart (my favourite company!) are proposing basically a stripped J-Herc for SAR. Given CF investment in J-Herc, commonality might make this a better choice, also ability to double as a tactical lifter.

Would have replied sooner, golfing today.  

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 44): As for Viking and the Buff NG, a non-starter. No range, limited payload, trying to pressurize the sucker, good luck. And an orphan. The only thing it really has going for it is "low and slow".

Don't look now.....but in the current job hungry economy, the DHC-5NG might just exactly what could be prescribed for the RCAF.....

View Large View Medium Photo © Planecatcher

View Large View Medium Photo © Mark Kryst - YXUphoto

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...for-dhc-5-buffalo-relaunch-374237/

Quote:
"Viking Air is looking to relaunch production on the de Havilland DHC-5 Buffalo following strong interest in an upgraded version from existing operators of the 50-year-old twin-engined turboprop.

'We launched a market study last month to gauge customer demand, determine the potential size of this market globally and to fully assess the feasibility of relaunching this legacy product,' says Rob Mauracher vice president of Viking, which owns the Buffalo's type certificate. 'We know there is demand from both commercial operators and governments worldwide as we have already received a couple of letters of intent.'

[.....]

The relaunched Buffalo would be called the DHC-5NG and would include a host of refinements including Pratt & Whitney PW150 engines, a six-blade composite propeller and a modern cockpit, says Mauracher."


P&WC engines, six-blade props, modern cockpit, local systems + sensors, and cheap(?).....not "strictly" an orphan either, with its little Twotter brother. And proudly flying the maple leaf.....what more can Canucks want?   





[Edited 2012-07-12 14:27:35]