de Havilland Canada Caribou, Buffalo, Dash-7, and Dash-8

Captain Canada · August 15, 2008, 09:12:18 PM

After the tender for the CDN FWSAR was issued, many people were asking that same question. Seems the CAF demanded a ramp, whereas the DHC boys asked "what's wrong with jumping from the side door ? " I heard it would cost too much to gain the C of A for a new, rear-ramped Dasher. Shame, tho......

Jeffry Fontaine · August 15, 2008, 09:48:27 PM

Quote from: Captain Canada on August 15, 2008, 09:12:18 PMAfter the tender for the CDN FWSAR was issued, many people were asking that same question. Seems the CAF demanded a ramp, whereas the DHC boys asked "what's wrong with jumping from the side door ? " I heard it would cost too much to gain the C of A for a new, rear-ramped Dasher. Shame, tho......

Todd, for some reason, I am not surprised at the response from DHC and disappointed as well since they did so well with the Caribou and Buffalo designs. Did they all of a sudden get stooooooooopid? Sure jumping personnel from a side door is the most common method of inserting paratroopers but those door bundles tend to really play hell with the side of the aircraft in anything other than a fabric container. Low Altitude Aerial Delivery is often practiced with ramp loads which consist of pallets and sufficient packing materials to keep the load intact after hitting the ground and that type of cargo is most unsuitable for a door load.

Captain Canada · August 15, 2008, 09:53:40 PM

For sure, JJ...it's the same problem that befalls the CL-415 SAR bird. Perfect in almost every respect, save for that bloody side door ! And when you're not SARing, you could always snuff out forest fires......or take the PM on remote fishing trips.

AeroplaneDriver · August 15, 2008, 10:11:55 PM

The design of the pressure vessel in the -8 would make it hard to change to a ramp configuration. The rear pressure bulkhead is just about in the center of where a ramp would be. The added weight of a ramp mechanism would alot make for some pretty drastic CG issues.

The Rat · August 16, 2008, 04:20:37 AM

As I understand it the side door method is preferred for parachute ops because you can use both sides of the aircraft and empty a load of troops faster. If the rear ramp is used you can only unload one line otherwise the airflow issues might cause guys to get bumped together and tangled. And I can understand the rear bulkhead problems, after all the -7 and -8 were designed from the outset for passenger use.

BUT...

This is the wonderful world of whiffery, with unlimited budgets, innovative solutions, and vast quantities of cool craziness, so I say someone should go for it!

Captain Canada · August 16, 2008, 07:28:21 AM

Sure, Rat....just as soon as some good quality 144th scale kits of her come out ! Cheap ones, too.....

What about the Q-400 ? It's so big and long, couldn't something be done with it's fuselage ? Now that I mention it, how many different variants of the Dash are there ?

AeroplaneDriver · August 16, 2008, 08:43:32 AM

As an airliner there are 6 versions of the Dash, the -100, -200, and -300 were the first three. When they introduced the active noise & vibration cancelling they changed the marketing name to the "Q" series (for quiet) and offered the Q200, Q300, and Q400. Then there are the military/surveillance models. Not sure exactly how many different ones they offer, though quite a few of the special mission aircraft operating are old airliners that have been modded.

The 100/200/Q200 are hard to tell apart visually. One easy to spot difference between the 100 and 200 is the taxi light. In the 100 it is in the nose, on the 200 it's on the nosegear (though a few very early serial number 200s still had the nose mount I think). The 100 also has an engine breather tube at the rear of the nacelle that is gone on the 200, so if you see a little oily pipe sticking out about an inch, it's a 100. There really isnt any way to tell the difference between the 200 and Q200 (or 300/Q300) without going into the flight deck and looking for the ANVS switch.

I wish someone would do the whole series in 1/72. I'd love to be able to both build the ones I've flown and to make a gunship out of a Q400.

Captain Canada · August 16, 2008, 09:55:08 AM

Thanks for the info, Nick. Any road, they're all lovely aeroplanes !

When we were in Toronto last week, I saw one of the Swedish Coast Guard ones fly over the hotel. Unfortunately, I didn't have my camera with me at the time......darn it. I also saw one in NFLD a few years back. Nice looking paint on those birds.

The HC kit is a bit of a dog, but buildable nontheless. I've also got the LE coversion for the NavTrainer, but it looks like it would make a better gunship or COIN type, tho.

GTX · January 28, 2011, 11:07:54 AM

Found on wen whilst searching for something else - were one of you guys responsible?

Regards,

Greg

Green Dragon · January 28, 2011, 01:00:09 PM

Any idea if Viking might restart Buffalo production or are they just sticking with supporting existing airframes?
Would have been a good Aussie Caribou replacement instead of those little Super King Airs.

Paul Harrison

The Big Gimper · January 28, 2011, 01:40:07 PM

What is so cool about the Gun-alo? is that after shooting all the bad guys who are in the open, it can land in the same open field, the crew can pick up all the empty shell casings and fly out again.

It should be noted that DND does not have unlimited ammo budget.

apophenia · January 28, 2011, 01:43:22 PM

Quote from: Green Dragon on January 28, 2011, 01:00:09 PM
Any idea if Viking might restart Buffalo production or are they just sticking with supporting existing airframes?
Would have been a good Aussie Caribou replacement instead of those little Super King Airs.

Paul: Viking wants to build a DHC-5NG with de-rated PW150s, glass cockpit, and all mod cons. Unfortunately, they have pegged this project to the Canadian Forces' FWSAR project (with no probably outcome other than C-27Js). Somehow I doubt that the RAAF would be any more inclined to drop C-27s from their wishlist in favour DHC-5NGs.

On the whif side, how about an alternative reality where there's Aussie content for the DHC-5NG? Here's my idea: Viking is also a Boeing supplier. Hawker de Havilland became Boeing Aerostructures Australia. So, Viking does a deal with Boeing to re-establish de Havilland Australia as a DHC-5NG partner.

The 'DHA-5NG' is pitched to the ADF as a direct Caribou replacement. The sweetner is: DHA assembles Buffalo NG compenents at their Bankstown plant (and builds half of those components in Australia). Meanwhile, Viking supplies the remaining components (incl. Canadian-made engines, etc.) and co-markets the revived ASTA GAF-22 Nomad NG as a 'little brother' to the DHC-6-400 for the global market.

rickshaw · January 28, 2011, 09:02:17 PM

Quote from: Green Dragon on January 28, 2011, 01:00:09 PM
Any idea if Viking might restart Buffalo production or are they just sticking with supporting existing airframes?
Would have been a good Aussie Caribou replacement instead of those little Super King Airs.

Paul Harrison

The Supers are meant only to be short-term until they extract digits and figure out what they want to replace the Caribous with (not that they haven't had over 20 years to do it in). Personally, I think the C-27J would be ideal but I fear the Supers may become permanent.

Maverick · January 28, 2011, 09:31:02 PM

Unfortunately I agree with you there Rick. One wonders what will happen if we ever need the services of a STOL airlifter in the forseeable future?

You can only carry so much in a helo and the Herc has a landing run that precludes many of the missions that the 'Bou flew.

Regards,

Mav

rickshaw · January 29, 2011, 01:37:12 AM

Quote from: Maverick on January 28, 2011, 09:31:02 PM
Unfortunately I agree with you there Rick. One wonders what will happen if we ever need the services of a STOL airlifter in the forseeable future?

You can only carry so much in a helo and the Herc has a landing run that precludes many of the missions that the 'Bou flew.

Regards,

Mav

The Herc, if lightly loaded is quite a good STOL performer. Of course, you couldn't beat a 'bou with a light load. I've seen pictures of one of them taking off from a city park here in Perth and it does so in an incredibly short distance. I was also once told of one landing and taking off from the Parade Ground at Keswick barracks in Adelaide. I'm not sure what the C-27J's performance is like but its biggest advantage is that it has the same cockpit as a Herc, so it makes flight crew training a great deal cheaper (I suspect it would be "Remember to look out the window and count the engines!"

). The G.222 in its original form was a very sprightly STOL aircraft so I'd hope the C-27J has retained that.

As to the missions the 'bou flew, a lot of them could be filled by a lightly loaded Herc. The few that couldn't really need that extra bit of STOL. Using a Herc though is expensive - twice as many engines. It could though, fill the need in many of the emergencies. The only places it couldn't get into would be the mountain strips in PNG or the small Island strips in the Islands. Just hope we don't get a BIG emergency in such remote places where a LOT more people than a Super can carry, need evacuating in a big hurry.