Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo

teacher · Post by **teacher** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 pm

Now I REALLY like this idea. With a modern update could this mean the best of the Buff's qualities with more added performance?

Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo

By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief

Earlier this year Viking Air, of Victoria, B.C. Canada resumed production of the de Havilland Twin Otter and now it has its sights set on an even more ambitious project. The company, which owns the type certificate to seven de Havilland models, is proposing to start building the DHC-5 Buffalo, a large twin-engine utility aircraft with ultra short takeoff and landing capability and a rear cargo door that accommodated bulky cargo. The aircraft has been the backbone of the Canadian Forces' fixed wing search and rescue fleet for decades but the military is now looking for replacements for the 40-year-old aircraft. Viking President Dave Curtis says the most affordable answer is an updated Buff. "The requirement to replace the present fleet is not based on a lack of ability for the Buffalo to do the job, but simply due to the aging of the aircraft," Curtis said.

Curtis said other countries have expressed interest in a modernized Buffalo, which would include more efficient, more powerful Pratt and Whitney Canada PW150 engines, glass cockpit with enhanced vision and NVG capability. There are at least two Buffaloes in commercial service in Canada's north and Viking says there is a potential market for civilian versions of the aircraft. Viking is proposing to phase in the new Buffaloes by upgrading existing aircraft first. New aircraft would be built at Viking's facilities in Victoria and Calgary.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/Viki ... 455-1.html

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:15 pm

As long as they get those stupid GE engines off the frame, that'l be a huge leap forward.

CD · Post by CD » Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:17 pm

This would be good news... hope they proceed with the development!

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:45 pm

just curious wrote:As long as they get those stupid GE engines off the frame, that'l be a huge leap forward.

Based on what, military experience?

kingeddie · Post by **kingeddie** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:52 pm

I know a fellow who was a test pilot on the Buff and said the GE s were duds from the start, Also we had one in our hangar this summer for an engine change no less and the AME's told us that they cant get 500 hrs out of an engine in most cases .

Go pratt

JMACK · Post by **JMACK** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:06 pm

Wow! Pratts no more CT-64's no right angle drives no flame outs just cause you pulled the power back too quick;-) A great airplane made greater!

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:12 pm

based on the C-5 Provider (PT-6)getting about 5500 more hours between overhauls.

brownbear · Post by **brownbear** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:54 pm

Buffs would be a great addition to the Twins for Borek.......

I think the buffs will out sell the -6 for viking. Both would be good. Some serious lobbying needs to be done to the Feds to shop locally for our government needs. No need for foreign products here, that includes the USA.

SAR_YQQ · Post by **SAR_YQQ** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:08 pm

Just need Viking to rework the design to make it faster, pressurized and carry more fuel. Is that a whole new airplane? Doesn't sounds too economical anymore.

Oh, and we'll need the fleet on the line in the next 5 years.

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:14 pm

Could be a lucrative military contract if it's and upgraded form of the original. Especially when you think that one of the main replacement contenders for the CC-115 is the C-27J Spartan, a design that is only 6 years younger than the Buffalo!

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:34 pm

CT64-820-4. The CT64-820-4 is an uprated variant whose power was raised to 3,227 ehp at T-O (including about 236 lb of jet thrust), or 3,133 shp at the propeller gearbox. TIT increased to 1370°F (743°C) over the 1190°F (643°C) for the CT64-820 version: SFC is 0.486 lb/shp/hr (82.13 mg/J) at maximum power. This engine model powers the DHC-5D. This engine model was FAA certificated in October 1974.

The PW 150 burns about .465lb./hp about a 7% improvement along with more hot/high performance, and presuurization does F-All for an A/C that spends 90% of it's time at or below 500'.

Good on em, and it will make BC, Alta, and Quebec happy. Maybe this time they'll get a majority.

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am

Hahah, you guys crack me up. You have these strong opinions on the GE engines, based on second hand info, or worse, the results of military operations. The simple fact is, the military has a dismal dispatch rate on anything they operate, including the twin otter. Why is that? They are ham-fisted bus drivers. Sorry, but it's the truth. If the procedures allow use of a powerplant to it's limits (redlines in thrust for example, either at t/o or in reverse), then by golly let's use it right to redline (anyone here ever listen to the military train in the dhc-6 overhead YZF, yikes!). As a result, they may only make it 500 hours before overhaul. Any operator that is paying for the overhaul would never abuse their equipment in the same manner.

Having said all that, the GE engines will soon not be supported, and it is already difficult to get parts for them. Therefore, some version of the Pratt only makes sense. Perhaps the PW-120 or 121? Should fit in the current cowl, and you would get more hp, increased lift, speed and better fuel burn, so it's a win-win-win-win. Not to mention parts availability and commonalities with -8 and ATR fleets.

What would be nice is if Viking could improve the rear door operation, and perhaps strengthen the floor assembly while they are at it.

Moose47 · Post by **Moose47** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:44 am

<<<<Donald
Post subject: Re: Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:34 pm
Posts: 772
Location: Canada
Hahah, you guys crack me up. You have these strong opinions on the GE engines, based on second hand info, or worse, the results of military operations. The simple fact is, the military has a dismal dispatch rate on anything they operate, including the twin otter. Why is that? They are ham-fisted bus drivers. Sorry, but it's the truth.>>>>

100 % 'Grade 'A' BULLSHIT!!!! What do you base these riidculous claims on? Were you ever in the military? You remind me of someone who could not meet the quals to get into CF pilot training and took it personal. You insult every military pilot I ever flew with.

Bulawrench · Post by **Bulawrench** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:16 am

Let's see if Viking can produce what they say for a change. Like the turbine Otter project...day late and too many dollars spent. A good house cleaning is in order. How about stop gouging everyone on parts. 2 cents

railroad · Post by **railroad** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:55 am

So, if they put pratts on them, do they change props as well? I'd miss that sweet rumble overhead.

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:05 pm

Hopefully they read the market better and sell a few more than DHC did.

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 3:48 pm

Well this is actually smart business, You throw out the press release saying there considering it. Then any interested parties will start crawling out of the wood work to express interest in it perhaps some letters of understanding and deposits. Viking can now go to the bank saying we need X amount to make this happen oh and the Governments of Canada and Australia are doing "Studying" the project. So the banks like the sound of that and proceed to the next step. All it cost them was a press release.

If no one calls expressing interest, you will see a press release stating the Buffalo program has been shelved for the time being due to poor state of the global economy.

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:03 pm

Hahah, you guys crack me up. You have these strong opinions on the GE engines, based on second hand info, or worse, the results of military operations.

No, I base it on the ones in Tanzania that fly their asses off like everything else Pratt powered.

motox415 · Post by **motox415** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:09 pm

The CT64 is another failed attempt of putting a helicopter engine in a fixed wing aircraft. Pretty hard for an operator to make money with an aircraft when the engine TBO depending on the dash number is between 1200 and 2400 hours. Might as well buy Russian. A PW 120 does not produce enough HP to replace the GE engine in the DHC-5.
Last I heard Viking has a DHC-6 in the jigs in YYC.

Double Wasp · Post by **Double Wasp** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:49 am

JC not to be pedantic but did you mean the C-123 Provider because the only C-5 I can find is the Galaxy which is a touch bigger. I know the C-123 turbinization was attempted using the same Allison turbine one of the Herc models but it never made it to full production. There is also the C-160 Alentia but I believe they were also Allison powered. With regards to Tanzania what type were you talking about. If you were talking about a Pratt powered Buffalo I am pretty sure there isn't one. The Caribou has been turbinized with Pratts but it is quite a bit smaller. If I am wrong could you post some information regarding it.
I do have quite a bit of time behind those GE engines and they were some of the coolest starting (compared to Pratt), best performing, engines I had the pleasure of working with. The engineers really liked working on them because everything was easy to get at and out in the open.
The problem with them is that GE didn't make very many of them and they want to get out of making parts for them. GE put an AD on them, reducing the amount of cycles they can do between overhauls, then delayed making the parts to repair them. Civilian opertors using the engines keep getting the cycles extended using their operating data as proof that the engines are reliable.
I do agree that putting Pratts on them would be better as far as dealing with the engine manufactuers and getting parts. But there is really nothing wrong with the engine itself.
I also have to agree with Donald on how the military handles its engines, he could have said it with a little more tact however. It is a little rough when you hear the pitch change of the prop happen very quickly on climb out on a -40 day. I know the engines are tough but what about prop seals. I have also heard about the "slam" checks that used to happen on the Buff. Now I understand you mil guys think you are the best and you dont have to worry about the cost of maintenance. But if any chief pilot heard their guys running their airplanes like that the pilot would be on the carpet very shortly. I feel bad if you feel that these comments insult every one in the forces but try to take it as constructive.
Ready for flaming
DW