First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

dhc#
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 7:38 am

First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by dhc# » Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:23 pm

---------- ADS -----------
  

Mapleflt
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Mapleflt » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:07 am

I find it unfortunate that the Fed's and DND couldn't have found a way or means to support Viking and put together an "updated" Cariboo for this role
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by AuxBatOn » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:38 am

You mean fudge the requirements? Yeah, that normally goes very well... Viking could have bid on the tender. They decided not to likely because they could not meet the listed requirements.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Donald » Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:21 am

If Viking was based in Quebec, we’d all be seeing the updated Buffalo in this role.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5752
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by ahramin » Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:22 pm

I don't know anything about it but that plane looks pretty cool. Anything wrong with it other than a lack nostalgia appeal for those with a Canadiana fetish?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
TheRealMcCoy
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:58 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by TheRealMcCoy » Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:53 pm

Payload and range is what my friends in the service said. Herc would have been a better choice in many peoples' opinion.

But my DeHavilland fanboy'ism would've loved a revamped Buffalo.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by B208 » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:06 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:38 am
You mean fudge the requirements? Yeah, that normally goes very well... Viking could have bid on the tender. They decided not to likely because they could not meet the listed requirements.
If it weren’t for fudged requirements we would have gotten the C27.
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by AuxBatOn » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:07 pm

B208 wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:06 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:38 am
You mean fudge the requirements? Yeah, that normally goes very well... Viking could have bid on the tender. They decided not to likely because they could not meet the listed requirements.
If it weren’t for fudged requirements we would have gotten the C27.
They were just ignored.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by B208 » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:15 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:07 pm
B208 wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:06 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:38 am
You mean fudge the requirements? Yeah, that normally goes very well... Viking could have bid on the tender. They decided not to likely because they could not meet the listed requirements.
If it weren’t for fudged requirements we would have gotten the C27.
They were just ignored.
Fudged, ignored. Call it what you want, but the upshot is that the procurement process is not about getting the CF what it needs. The procurement process is about politics. I’m living it right now.
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by AuxBatOn » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:27 pm

There is an attempt to balance industrial transfer benefits, military requirements, cost and schedule. I understand what the government does however the requirements should exists and be sacred: this is what we need to do our job right. Having said this, because it is not the best platform doesn't mean it doesn't meet the requirements defined in the SOR.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by B208 » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:22 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:27 pm
There is an attempt to balance industrial transfer benefits, military requirements, cost and schedule. I understand what the government does however the requirements should exists and be sacred: this is what we need to do our job right. Having said this, because it is not the best platform doesn't mean it doesn't meet the requirements defined in the SOR.
You might be surprised how elastic an SOR is. There are definitely examples of “aftercasting” the requirements once PSPC and ISED have decided who they want to win.

This is usually the point where our retired, former Hornet driving resident expert on everything chimes in. Anyone know where he got to? :twisted:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1900
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Old fella » Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:39 pm

B208 wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:22 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:27 pm
There is an attempt to balance industrial transfer benefits, military requirements, cost and schedule. I understand what the government does however the requirements should exists and be sacred: this is what we need to do our job right. Having said this, because it is not the best platform doesn't mean it doesn't meet the requirements defined in the SOR.
You might be surprised how elastic an SOR is. There are definitely examples of “aftercasting” the requirements once PSPC and ISED have decided who they want to win.

This is usually the point where our retired, former Hornet driving resident expert on everything chimes in. Anyone know where he got to? :twisted:
I think your knowledge/wisdom and a definitive grasp on all things aviation chased him away to greener pastures.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gannet167
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Gannet167 » Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:43 pm

If I was in need of SAR, I wouldn't want that 295 coming for me. It's tiny, has no payload, needs multiple fuel stops to get anywhere, is too slow, has no loiter time. The SAR Techs can't even stand up inside it. But, we can all sleep well at night knowing that the regional industrial benefits were met.

"I have no doubt the air force wanted the C-27J. I can understand that... But that's why it's incumbent on the assistant deputy minister of materiel, the deputy minister and the minister to safeguard the process and protect the military — actually — from themselves." - Head of Military Procurement. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fixed- ... -1.3885653

Who protects the country from these bureaucrats and their blatantly political decisions? Or protects the public from inadequate equipment? Would it be so controversial if doctors wanted a specific MRI machine to save your kid's life? Or firemen wanted a specific firetruck? Is anyone "protecting" the firefighters from themselves by selecting their equipment for them in spite of what they say is required to save your family? DND should be renamed the Department of Regional Industrial Benefits. It has so little to do with defence, mostly who gets rich and who gets elected.

The only military procurement that was on time and budget resulted in trumped up charges against the Vice Chief of Defence Staff, later dropped after the government had embarrassed itself badly for trying to cancel and award pork barrel contracts (to a firm that has deep political connections and makes large political donations) and was at risk of a public trial that would've likely ended political careers and possibly sent people to jail when the truth came out. So they withdrew charges and had to settle ($$$) to cover it up.

This only changes when the public gets fed up and is pissed about it. For most, they have little idea that we even have a military or the importance of the jobs it does. The don't know or care. I hope those that are lost or in need of rescue will be OK with sub standard rescue capability in lieu of the political/industrial benefits.

But yeah, nice little plane.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mapleflt
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Mapleflt » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:50 am

I find it very disheartening to see "politics" trumping national self worth. It's clear that any form of statesmanship has been eliminated as a core tenet of politics. When we as a country miss these opportunities to "grow our own" every citizen loses out. The once proud deHavilland Aircraft Company has been reduced to a mere footnote and that's a sad statement given their once majestic status on the world aviation stage. I applad Viking and the efforts they have made to fly the Canadian flag. It's a shame the politicians of this country can't stand up, do the right thing by them and shop at home for the good of the country.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Kosiw
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:12 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Kosiw » Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:32 am

Gannet167 wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:43 pm
If I was in need of SAR, I wouldn't want that 295 coming for me. It's tiny, has no payload, needs multiple fuel stops to get anywhere, is too slow, has no loiter time. The SAR Techs can't even stand up inside it. But, we can all sleep well at night knowing that the regional industrial benefits were met.

"I have no doubt the air force wanted the C-27J. I can understand that... But that's why it's incumbent on the assistant deputy minister of materiel, the deputy minister and the minister to safeguard the process and protect the military — actually — from themselves." - Head of Military Procurement. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fixed- ... -1.3885653

Who protects the country from these bureaucrats and their blatantly political decisions? Or protects the public from inadequate equipment? Would it be so controversial if doctors wanted a specific MRI machine to save your kid's life? Or firemen wanted a specific firetruck? Is anyone "protecting" the firefighters from themselves by selecting their equipment for them in spite of what they say is required to save your family? DND should be renamed the Department of Regional Industrial Benefits. It has so little to do with defence, mostly who gets rich and who gets elected.

The only military procurement that was on time and budget resulted in trumped up charges against the Vice Chief of Defence Staff, later dropped after the government had embarrassed itself badly for trying to cancel and award pork barrel contracts (to a firm that has deep political connections and makes large political donations) and was at risk of a public trial that would've likely ended political careers and possibly sent people to jail when the truth came out. So they withdrew charges and had to settle ($$$) to cover it up.

This only changes when the public gets fed up and is pissed about it. For most, they have little idea that we even have a military or the importance of the jobs it does. The don't know or care. I hope those that are lost or in need of rescue will be OK with sub standard rescue capability in lieu of the political/industrial benefits.

But yeah, nice little plane.

I guess they could mitigate the lack of speed/performance/range of the C295 by basing them more strategically especially for the arctic (ie. YZF/YFB). The east/west coast basings are obvious...guess they go where the largest populations are concentrated.

I always wondered how an incident involving an airliner in the high arctic would play out given the huge distances from any real source of SAR help being located so far to the south.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Gravity always wins

Gannet167
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Gannet167 » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:31 am

Mapleflt wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:50 am
I find it very disheartening to see "politics" trumping national self worth. It's clear that any form of statesmanship has been eliminated as a core tenet of politics. When we as a country miss these opportunities to "grow our own" every citizen loses out. The once proud deHavilland Aircraft Company has been reduced to a mere footnote and that's a sad statement given their once majestic status on the world aviation stage. I applad Viking and the efforts they have made to fly the Canadian flag. It's a shame the politicians of this country can't stand up, do the right thing by them and shop at home for the good of the country.
I understand your point. However, there simply isn't a Canadian made product that fits the bill. The Caribou and Buffalo aren't the right planes, they are remarkable in their own way but inadequate to do SAR. Range, loiter time, speed, pressurization, etc. STOL capability doesn't save lives, the Cormorant is what comes in to hoist.

I don't think it's the government's job to orchestrate make work projects. They shouldn't be propping up industry that can't stand on its own two feet competitively and awarding contacts just to keep companies afloat that can't make it on their own. Defence (and SAR) are too important to buy the wrong plane just because of industrial benefits. It should be the best product and / or value, regardless of where it's made (other than buying defence products from a potential enemy). The economy grows because private industry is efficient, productive, profitable. The government doesn't grow the economy, it can tax it and slow it down, and redistribute to particular groups out of favouritism. But the government really only stands in the way. It actually costs the economy growth.

When you make decisions based on where the thing is made, it's always political. It can't not be. The decision is to favour a Canadian producer for any reason other than the product is truly the best one, is political. When this happens, we pay more and get less. Maybe a few jobs are artificially created by pork barelling a contract but the extra expense to buy the product in a non competitive manner comes from taxes and / or debt, and generally means it's inferior. And that costs the economy $ and more jobs as a whole more than buying a foriegn airplane that's better made at a better price. It's just that by favouring a Canadian firm, that particular firm and those workers (and therefore the politician trying to be re-elected) win, but it's at the expense of everyone else. This is simple economics and widely undisputed outside of the rhetoric politicians feed us. Maybe if Viking (and it's shareholders) paid less taxes to support expensive politically awarded shipbuilding and airplane building contracts, it'd be a much more successful company and provide even more jobs.

Classic case, the government bought Iltis jeep for the army. We elected not to buy the Hummer, if memory serves for about $40k a copy. Instead we awarded..... Drum roll.... Bombardier the contract to build a $12k Iltis and paid....... $86k a copy. We got junk and paid more than double. The army was stuck with a POS, the tax payer footed a massive bill. But hey, some guys got some jobs that a company couldn't have generated on its own otherwise. Yay Canada. My army friends would've appreciated some armour when they hit an IED, my mom would've appreciated some more tax dollars spent on healthcare while she waited on a back logged list for chemo as her cancer exploded. But at least some Montreal politician got re-elected.

If your family was down in the woods, broken leg after surviving a plane crash, or clinging to an overturned boat a few hundred miles off shore, how many extra fuel stops would you say is acceptable for an inferior plane to have to make to reach them so some jobs could be awarded?
---------- ADS -----------
  

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by fish4life » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:30 pm

was the q400 ever looked at as an option? I'd imagine in a SAR type roll they could add an aux tank of some sort and have tons of range
---------- ADS -----------
  

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Heliian » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:49 pm

Why do you need a herc to dump 2 sartechs out of?

The proof will be in the pudding.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by B208 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:25 pm

Old fella wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:39 pm
B208 wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:22 pm

This is usually the point where our retired, former Hornet driving resident expert on everything chimes in. Anyone know where he got to? :twisted:
I think your knowledge/wisdom and a definitive grasp on all things aviation chased him away to greener pastures.
That is unfortunate. I enjoyed bantering with him.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by B208 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:30 pm

[
fish4life wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:30 pm
was the q400 ever looked at as an option? I'd imagine in a SAR type roll they could add an aux tank of some sort and have tons of range
Q-400 wasn't designed to drop things or to spend prolonged periods at 1000 AGL (exposure to low level turbulence results in accelerated airframe fatigue). Both key aspects of SAR.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by B208 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:35 pm

Heliian wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:49 pm
Why do you need a herc to dump 2 sartechs out of?

The proof will be in the pudding.
Well, you need to get the SARTECHs were they need to be, (the quicker the better, so fuel stops are bad). You need to be able to spend extend time on a search (so lots of endurance, i.e. fuel, is good). You need to drop equipment for the SARTECHs to use and you need to stay on station (so, again, lots of endurance, i.e. fuel, is good), while the SARTECHs do their job.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5752
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by ahramin » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:54 pm

So what's the range on this thing compared to a Herc?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1668
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by C-GGGQ » Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:27 pm

fish4life wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:30 pm
was the q400 ever looked at as an option? I'd imagine in a SAR type roll they could add an aux tank of some sort and have tons of range
As far as I was aware that "option" was part of the hold up. Had to prove the q400 wouldn't work. (No cargo ramp, range, etc.) Before they could go to something else
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by Jet Jockey » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:32 pm

And I'm told really piss poor single engine performance too.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5752
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: First RCAF C-295 makes Maiden Flight

Post by ahramin » Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:36 pm

What is piss poor single engine performance? Either it can climb out from a v1 cut at the weights and airports it operates at or it can't. Are you saying it cannot?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”