Author Topic: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities  (Read 80526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCG

  • Directing Staff
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 26,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,440
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #615 on: May 28, 2008, 00:51:01 »
Could the V-22 also fill the role of the CH-149, permitting them to be sold off or used as tactical helicopters in addition to the future CH-147 Chinook?

Recognizing that it is a gross oversimplification, here is a bit of a stats comparison (again depending on Wikipedia for accurate information  :-\)

Offline Zoomie

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 3,619
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,348
  • Token FWSAR Flyboy turned ME Instructor
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #616 on: May 28, 2008, 03:08:56 »
Those stats are very rough and slightly inaccurate.  The range for the Buff is on the low side with the corresponding range for the Cormorant being a little too high.
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Celer et Audax
RESCUE!
Training!

Offline Colin P

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 8,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,761
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #617 on: May 28, 2008, 10:48:55 »
Unlike Atlantic Canada and the Halifax SRR - we have under 5 missions a year that involve going out to sea.  The other 200+ missions are all intra-coastal or in the rocks.


Sheesh times have changed, I can remember a lot more sea based searches than that during my days on the R-class cutters and hovercraft.

Offline Kirkhill

  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 17,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,836
  • Grateful
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #618 on: May 29, 2008, 13:46:52 »
Colin,

I am going to guess it is due to the lack of salmon, lack of whiting and the associated Poles and the rise in inexperienced urbanite rockclimbers, bikers, backpackers, skiers and snowboarders.

Tax dollars are no longer used to support people earning a living but instead idiots putting themselves at risk for fun and excitement.

Chris.
Over, Under, Around or Through.

Not Conspiracy.  But Good Intentions and Human Error.

Offline Don2wing

  • Guest
  • *
  • 720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #619 on: May 30, 2008, 10:41:47 »
 Here is a news release from Viking Air Ltd's President on the old Buffalo:

Venerable Buffalo is no aviation 'orphan'
Island company owns the plane's production rights, and supplies parts
 
David Curtis
Special to Times Colonist


Friday, May 30, 2008


It is wrong to suggest that the Buffalo aircraft -- known as the CC-115 in military service and DHC-5 in civilian use -- is an "orphan" with no "ready supply of spare parts," as has been suggested in the Times Colonist. Viking Air Ltd. will not let that happen.

Viking, which is located at Victoria International Airport, is the Transport Canada-approved design owner (known as a type certificate) for the Buffalo and is responsible for worldwide support of the aircraft.

Viking Air Ltd. takes this responsibility very seriously. Viking did not acquire the DHC-1 through DHC-7 (which includes the Buffalo) type certificates and production rights from Bombardier in 2006 simply to abandon them and their owner/operators.

In fact, the service and support of these aircraft is the primary business focus of Viking and our almost 300 employees. Viking and our support partner Field Aviation of Calgary are committed to supporting the Buffalo fleet and working with the Department of National Defence in building a sustainment model to ensure that the Buffalo aircraft meets the current and anticipated needs of our Armed Forces in a safe and effective manner.

De Havilland Canada aircraft are known the world over as rugged, versatile and effective transports.

Viking is evaluating all the production opportunities related to the aircraft programs it purchased from Bombardier and has already restarted production of the venerable, multi-mission Twin Otter transport, which had been out of production since 1988, because the worldwide demand for new examples is strong.

Viking intends to build the Twin Otters, sell them and support them as only it knows how.

As a long-term supplier of support to the "heritage" de Havilland Canada fleet of DHC-2 Beavers, DHC-3 Otters, DHC-4 Caribous, DHC-5 Buffalos, DHC-6 Twin Otters, and DHC-7 Dash 7s, Viking is, and will remain, dedicated to its in-service support responsibilities.

Of the aircraft types designed in the '60s, the Buffalo is one of the few that can continue in service without having to undergo a major (and massively costly) rebuild/replacement of fuselage or wings in order to remain structurally viable.

According to our records, more than half the original fleet of Buffalos are still in service around the world. Considering that production stopped in 1986, this alone is a testament to the aircraft's durability, the loyalty of its users and the support provided by Viking and our partners.

It is hardly an "orphan."

The Australian army is still actively using the DHC-4 Caribou, the Buffalo's 1950s predecessor, for the simple reason that nothing else can do what it does. Many other aircraft types proposed as replacements were designed in the '60s and have undergone massive modernizations and risen to become aircraft like the C-130J and the C-27J.

The costs to buy these modernized aircraft are unfortunately so astronomical that most air forces have little appetite for a fleet change until it becomes the only operational alternative.

It is our opinion that the Buffalo could be modernized by an all-Canadian team in order for it to serve the specialized mission of the DND for many years to come, at a fraction of the cost of a new fleet of C-27Js.

As we have found with the Twin Otter, there is nothing else produced today that will do what the Buffalo is capable of. This is a Canadian-designed and built aircraft, perfectly suited for a specialized Canadian mission and supported by local Canadian companies.

Instead of looking outside of the country, the best solution is to improve on a good thing by investing in a modernization program to extend the useful life of the existing Buffalo fleet. A Buffalo fleet modernization might be the catalyst to return the Buffalo to production.

There should be absolutely no doubt that Viking and its support partner Field Aviation are committed to supporting the DHC-5 (CC-115) Buffalo until the year 2015 and longer as maybe necessary.

The fact that Viking, located on Vancouver Island and the Buffalo design holder, was not contacted by any media outlet in order to better understand the support arrangements for the CC-115 Buffalo is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

David Curtis is president and CEO of Viking Air Ltd.


Offline YZT580

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 84
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #620 on: May 30, 2008, 11:06:36 »
So there!!!  The probable reason that the MSM never called Viking is probably that they googled buffalo, saw de Havilland and immediately stopped their research.  It is a good a/c but I suspect the seats need re-upholstering at the very least.  New avionics, new engines, still cheaper than buying new airframes.  And its mission capabilities mean that you can still turn around in the canyons and go real slow without a lot of downwash.  The reason given by Brazil for stopping their purchase programme for the C27 I believe was that it couldn't meet the mission specs that the buffalo could.  Considering that the C47 celebrates 75 years of operations either this year or next, the buffalo is only in early middle age.  It isn't old, it is just 'mature'.

Offline Colin P

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 8,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,761
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #621 on: May 30, 2008, 11:37:21 »
Well keeping in mind that Viking does have a dog in this fight, it is good that a supplier is just down the road from Comox, however a glowing press release and reality may be different. Are they producing the spares required? Can they? What is the lead time and do they have to compete in the tender process? Are there enough aircraft to be able to do a major refit on the fleet and still provide 24/7 coverage?

Often it is the lack of one or two critical components that causes headaches, despite having a warehouse full of other parts. Is the engine and parts still in production? What is the cost of getting common wear parts made that specific to the aircraft? Is the support budget adequate?

Offline Kirkhill

  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 17,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,836
  • Grateful
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #622 on: May 30, 2008, 12:13:52 »
Somebody has to keep inventory on hand.  Either the supplier or the user.  Either way it costs money.  Either way the user ends up paying or the supplier goes out of business.  I think all Viking is proposing is that if the Government of Canada were to give them a long term contract then they could offer security of supply, probably at a lower cost than buying a new fleet of aircraft with their own 25 year supply of completely different spare parts.

I can't see that it would hurt to talk to them.....and I have no idea or how sound the company is or how many customers they are currently servicing with how many aircraft etc.
Over, Under, Around or Through.

Not Conspiracy.  But Good Intentions and Human Error.

Offline Colin P

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 8,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,761
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #623 on: May 30, 2008, 12:29:28 »
I suspect that the twin otter will be there bread and butter, however the demand of decent bush aircraft is high as are the parts required to flying them. The older aircraft lend themselves to bush flying and are easier to fix out there. As long as Viking delivers what it promises and does not act as god favorite, then things should be good.

Offline WrenchBender [1]

    is back to work in KAF.

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 10,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 66
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #624 on: May 30, 2008, 12:47:28 »
Viking can play the injured party all they want, the parts that are needed to support the fleet are not procurable through Viking.
What is needed is Goodrich, Menasco, Hamilton Standard and GE to step up to the plate and support their out of production components, Actuators, Landing Gear, Props and Engines etc

WrenchBender (ex Buff LCMM)

« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 13:30:47 by WrenchBender »
Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids

Offline RiggerFE

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31
  • If it isn't broken, don't fix it!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #625 on: May 30, 2008, 13:21:14 »
The Buff's airframe is rock solid. It needs new engines and better props. The avionics are in the process of being updated, but could use more than the "light" project being approved. The landing gear is unique on the Buff as it takes a hell of a pounding on STOL landings, but over all they perform fine. The big complaint crews have is that it's not pressurized, I don't think there is an easy fix for that. If we were to put our 6 Buffs up for sale, they would be bought up in a heart beat. The 2 civi Buffs up north  are in constant demand.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 15,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,077
    • The Torch (with others)
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #626 on: May 30, 2008, 13:33:21 »
A post at The Torch:

Buffalo tempest rather overdone
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/buffalo-tempest-rather-overdone.html

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline eurowing

  • Member
  • ****
  • 8,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 169
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #627 on: May 30, 2008, 13:52:22 »
Some of the article is accurate, some is not.  Even in the small world of Buffalo's, ours are unique amongst them given the engine varient and propeller varient we use.  Much of the problem is our procurement process.  We often wait months for parts, causing us to rob from one ac to another.  This is not unique to our fleet or our military, nor is it a new problem, but it certainly makes the techs work more than required. 

I cannot view the blog.  Filtered out.

If anyone thinks we (or Ottawa) don't know Viking exists they are clearly talking out of their lane.
Plays with RC Airplanes in sandboxes

Offline kj_gully

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 330
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #628 on: June 05, 2008, 11:11:41 »
Slap my backside and call me a donkey! you mean our technicians have been working from before dawn until well after midnight to just keep one or on good days 2 of the 5 Buffalo in Comox (plus the one constantly at Field Aviation) flying, when all they had to do was call the good folks at Viking (who btw, just put out classified ads in the little Comox papers designed to poach qualified Devhavilland technicians away from the CF to help build Twin Otters) and presto, all our problems go away? Wow, are we ever stupid. Hey, I have an idea. What we should do is contract out all our Buffalo maintenance to Viking. That way, we free up our technicians to leave the CF, and Viking can pay them low wages because they already have a pension! I am sure a company striving to turn a profit will be much better able to provide our 24-7- 365 maintenance requirement than the Forces ever could. Hmm this is starting to sound eerily familiar....
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 11:17:32 by kj_gully »
Airborne, Ubique, Chimo, Bubbles up (somebody should change that one to something cooler), Ready, Aye Ready, Strength In Depth, That Others May Live, Rescue!

Offline kj_gully

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 330
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #629 on: December 06, 2008, 20:43:06 »
still tapping our toes, arms crossed, waiting for ANY announcement. just one more thing perogietion does to the armed forces......... I was so hoping this session would yield a firm timeline.
Airborne, Ubique, Chimo, Bubbles up (somebody should change that one to something cooler), Ready, Aye Ready, Strength In Depth, That Others May Live, Rescue!