New Twin Otter set to fly

[C-GGGQ]

Hull-loss description
Status:
Date: 15 MAR 1981
Type: de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter 300
Operator: Bradley Air Services
Registration: C-FDHT
C/n / msn: 130
First flight: 1968
Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-27
Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants:
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants:
Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants:
Airplane damage: Written off
Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location: Station Nord (Greenland)
Phase: Unknown (UNK)
Nature: Unknown
Departure airport: ?
Destination airport: ?
Narrative:
Damaged beyond repair when it sank through the ice.

The Original C-FDHT was destroyed in 81 sank in the ice. If the aircraft is destroyed you can use the registration.

[Rudy]

And First Air sunk it through the ice in Greenland in 81. Maybe the registration got reused?

[wxguy]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/activepage ... search.asp


Aircraft Information
Mark: C-FDHT
Common Name: Dehavilland Type Certified Model DHC-6 SERIES 300
Serial No: 434
Basis for Eligibility for Registration: Type Certificate - CAR Standard 507.02 (1), 507.03 (3) - A82
Category: Aeroplane Max take-off weight: 5667 kgs
Engine: 2, Turbo Prop
24-bit address: 110000000000100010110110
Regional Office: Vancouver Year Imported: 2004
Base of Operations: CANADA , British Columbia, Sidney
Manufacturer Information
Manufacturer: The De Havilland Aircraft Of Canada, Limited
Country of manufacture: CANADA Year of Manufacture: 1974
Registration Information
Type of Registration: Private
Owner Registered Since: 2005-01-28
Latest Certificate of Registration Issued: 2005-01-28
Last Registered Owner Information
Name: Viking Air Limited
Address: 9574 Hampden Rd
City: Sidney Province/State: British Columbia
Postal Code: V8L 5V5 Country: CANADA
Region: Pacific
Mail Recipient: Yes

[Unusual Attitude]

WOW! It looks great!

Here is a link to a cockpit photo:

http://www.dhc-2.com/Current%20Blog.html

And some sample cockpit layouts (pages 37 & 38):

http://www.vikingair.com/PDF/DHC-6400Se ... tation.pdf

[Ref Plus 10]

Jeeezus, does that thing have FMS?? I wonder how all those screens are gonna do in the cold.

[dhc-t2]

As far as C-FDHT goes, it is indeed s/n: 434. The registration may be the same as another previous twin otter registration. If the other aircraft fell through the ice then i'd say the letters are up for grabs.
I am tired of people saying it's a copy of...KBA, etc. There are a lot of wonderful people out there with wonderful ideas, mods & STC's. I am certain they are taking a great product & making it even better. As a matter of fact, I am certain that a substancial number of stakeholders & buyers have had some say into what they want in their aircraft. Nothing is been copied, ripped off or pilfered.
Fuel in the belly??? Not a problem, it is being certified under its original type certificate. The wings are not changing, flaps are the same, fuel/range is similar, it still has turbo prop engines, it still lands on water, ice & runway, dirt & grass.
A lot of thought went into the Primus APEX Honeywell avionics package. Don't think the money was spent on this like a bunch of kids in a candy store. Cold weather, gee, I wonder if someone thought of that? Maldives?! Geez, I wonder... Of course someone thought about it. Again I am tired of reading about the skeptics & "I wonder... & I don't think that will work", They copied this, they copied that. Just be happy that a great thing has come to life. Not a lot of people out there would make such an investment to bring forth such a project & aircraft.
As far as changes from the original in no particular order... (Four screen, Primus APEX Avionics) package, Aluminum Honeycomb flooring, All Carbon Fiber/Composite doors/Air Stair Door (Tell me that was copied), Upgraded switches & circuit breakers, Updated wiring/harness, SMR De-Ice boots, ATS Fuel Cells, Updated Radome, elimination of obsolete engine gauges/fuel gauges & transducers & all new LED lighting inside & out.
It's a thing of beauty,

[oates76]

Looks fantastic, congrats to all the people behind it. It's great to know they will be back in production and will be around for a long long time. Hope to fly one some day!

[linecrew]

Picture of s/n.434 taken back in 1986...



..and in 1998 on floats with a short nose.

[Rudy]

Weird. Registrations get reused but serial numbers? Perhaps they just put a new panel and a coat of paint on a 300 and claimed they built it from scratch.

[SierraPoppa]

Weird. Registrations get reused but serial numbers? Perhaps they just put a new panel and a coat of paint on a 300 and claimed they built it from scratch.

Has anybody from Viking actually claimed they built it from scratch?

It's just a demo.

[wxguy]

First, yes indeed the -400 proof of concept is scheduled to fly this week. ...
...This proof of concept is a -300 with different engines (-34 with -35 options), all the Viking mods (stretched, bigger door, etc.) and the new avionics suite. ...

So my take is that it is a -300 used as a demo to customers?

Does anyone know when the actual -400 will have it's first flight?

[Shep]

That's not the first time that A/C has flown. It was manufactured in 1974. Check the registry for C-FDHT. Anyone can upgrade the avionics and engines on a -300. Borek does it all the time. Let me know when Viking actually flies their own metal.

Agreed

[goldeneagle]

That's not the first time that A/C has flown. It was manufactured in 1974. Check the registry for C-FDHT. Anyone can upgrade the avionics and engines on a -300. Borek does it all the time. Let me know when Viking actually flies their own metal.

Agreed

I know all of the pundits here on Avcan can run an airline better than _anybody_ that's actually doing it, but, I didn't realize the business and engineering acuity here was so great, they can _build_ an airplane better than anybody too.

Taking a design from concept to first delivery is a project rife with technology, and certification risks, from the start of the process, thru till the first certified production airplane is delivered to a customer. There is a HUGE investment along the way, and, even behomoths like Boeing and Airbus literally 'bet the company' when they commit to production on a new design. For a great example of a project that ran into a huge technology risk, totally unforseen, just look at the early eclipse 500 experience. There they had it, prototype number 1, rolled out onto the ramp, ready to fire it up, do engine and taxi tests, and ultimately the first flight. Minor snag, they fought with it for a month, and in that time, they only got a successful start on the Williams engines twice. I believe they are flying with pratts today. The williams engine problems early on, caused a lot of grief with customers that put down early deposits.

The project at Viking is a little different beast, it's resurrecting an existing certified design, and taking it back to production. That means, they can manage technology risk very rationally, and sanely. What they have done in this case, is take all of the improvements they plan to put into the production aircraft, load them into an existing airframe, and then fly it in that configuration. Now they have something to take to the tradeshows, show potential customers 'here it is, in the configuration we are proposing to deliver brand new, certified, and flyable, wanna go for an airplane ride?'. Contrast this to a 'new airplane' like the eclipse was. I sat inside it a few years ago, with a client, on the ramp at an industry trade show in miami, my customer sitting in the seat had a confirmed delivery number, yet, the eclipse folks were unable to take him for a ride, show off the new airplane he is purchasing.

By taking an older airframe, installing all the mods that will become the new production airplane, they can take a demonstrator out, and demonstrate. Folks looking to buy a 4 million dollar airplane are smart enough to understand the difference between a demonstrator with retrofits, and a brand new airplane. They are also smart enough to understand, putting down a deposit on a 'new copy' of what they see on the ramp includes no technology or certification risks like they assume when putting down a deposit on an airplane that exists only in cad drawings and the figments of some imaginations. It's sitting in front of them, on the ramp, with a registration painted on the side, one that does NOT include the -X we see on pre-certification prototypes.

An aircraft salesman cannot reach a risk adverse market to find deposits if s/he only has drawings and promises to sell. If they have a flying copy, complete with certification documents in hand, this opens up tremendous new market opportunities, dealing with aircraft operators who are adverse to taking technology risks. Plunk down a deposit for the new twin otter today, you get a delivery date in the contract, and it does NOT include the dreaded 'pending certification' catch all. This we know, because, the final configuration is sitting on the ramp, certified, flyable, and they can load paying customers on board (assuming the registration is changed from private to commercial, which is just an administrative detail).

If I was an aircraft sales type, selling promises for new deliveries today, I'd much rather be selling the promise of a new -400 twin otter, than any VLJ that may or may not reach the certified stage of the production cycle. At least it's real, and flying, the only step left from here to first production delivery, is finish the process of assembling the jigs, and put the first round of aluminum thru them. There's little chance of prototype number 1 ending up on the ramp a year from now, and for some unforseen technical problem, the program gets set back by 2 years, with all my customers clamoring for returns on deposits.

Anybody can pound rivets and bend metal to make an airplane. the key is, getting from concept to first production without breaking the bank, and, by taking a -300 for which Viking owns the type certificate, and turning it into a demonstrator, allows them to do just that. They have a demonstrator in front of the customer base, a year faster, and 2 million dollars cheaper this way.

Then again, I wouldn't expect a group that doesn't understand the difference between a 'loan', 'promisory note' and a 'bond' to have any clue about the actual issues involved in financing an aircraft production line.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Excellent post Goldeneagle.

Except it may have been a waste of your time when it comes to some of individuals here who are in the pilot pool...like you said.

Then again, I wouldn't expect a group that doesn't understand the difference between a 'loan', 'promisory note' and a 'bond' to have any clue about the actual issues involved in financing an aircraft production line.

And that my friend may be part of the reason that flying for a living is not the best paying career in life......one can be a pilot and not really need to be very bright.

[Airtids]

Excellent post GE. You clearly get it. Stop by if you're ever through here, we can wander across, and I can take you for a tour...

This is a PROOF OF CONCEPT machine, but one that is fully conforming to the upcoming 'brand new' models. This machine will be used as a demonstrator, and flight test platform- it's sitting on the ramp at NBAA in Orlando as we speak, probably chalking up sales, for pennies on the dollar. Pretty smart, if you ask me. Viking owns the jigs and tooling, many of which have been used in the past to create -100s, -200s, and -300s. They will be the same parts on the -400, except brand new. If the brand new -400 flies any differently than this one did, I'm sure it will be a shocker.

[co-joe]

Looking forward to the new machine when it flies

[Meatservo]

Maybe a stupid question... will it be available on CAP floats, or just whips? I hope it comes with a short nose. I like the short nose.

By the time I get my hands on one, it'll probably be as old as the one I fly now.

[W5]

NBAA 2008: Twin Otter rises again

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... again.html

[Rudy]

Any word on when the first 400 will roll off the line?

[jet a1]

looks great...my only question is how long will it take for all the nice new avionics to warm up in -40? our tiny little gps has enough troubles. nice to see the -6 fleet getting larger..
later,
jet.

[just curious]

I'm glad to see it happening. We've just about tapped out the jungle/desert/dead airline sources for Otters. The world may not need 1000 more of them, but since they are used as airborne pickup trucks, SUV's, water taxis, and research platforms around the world, there's still a need for a fair bunch more.

There are a lot of companies that can't afford to park an existing otter to mod it the we we have; but they can buy a new one and sell the old frame later.

As far as the glass goes, preheat will likely be a requirement for -40, same as steam. But new customers have the option of either.

[Airtids]

Thanks JC. Good comments on the continued need for the machine. There really doesn't seem to be anything else available that does what the TO does.
I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that steam will not be an available option. Glass only on the new birds. Let's try and remember that gyros also take a beating in cold, rough and saline conditions. I think it will be a wait and see scenario as to how well the glass/chips will stand up.

[C-GGGQ]

I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that steam will not be an available option. Glass only on the new birds. Let's try and remember that gyros also take a beating in cold, rough and saline conditions.

Quoted from info brochure

Comment in Survey Findings;
“ It would appear that buyers should be offered the choice
of either a glass cockpit or a simpler but modern avionics
suite”
Result;
Two different configurations will be certified for the
DHC-6 400 Series. Manufacturer to be determined
through input from Technical Steering Committee. Either
system can be installed at the Completion Centre of
Customer choice

[bilko]

If your fleet had all -27s and you wanted the new 400 but with 27s would they sell you one?

Apparently not.

[HuD 91gt]

Anyone know about that Twin otter lookalike. Is it the Y-12? Why is that not widely used around here?

A friend of mine who does sheet metal work for Viking says the first official 400 is in Calgary. I beleive he said cockpit and cabin are complete.