Extreme STOL question

[Caracrane]

[quote="polar one"]JAC

YExteme STOL requires you to fly the last phase of the approach (or maybe more) well behind the curve. Porters respond well to this, and I have been told the stallions and the helios in general with their wingie fallout thingies do to. The DHC products (twin otter and turbo beaver) when you get them behind the curve dont give you as much, or any wiggle room
A twin otter is a great plane but the technique is a bit different for getting them in really short and they just land that much faster than the porter.

Extreme STOL is dangerous. It leaves virtually zero tolerance for error, and only takes a bit of an unexpected downdraft or wind gust to make things get really interesting..Lots of wrecks to prove even the pros rely on a bit of luck...not a great thing to do every day.[/quote


That's comin from a guy that did something with those A/C especially when i read something like "unexpected downdraft or wind gust to make things get really INTERESTING".

[rigpiggy]

that is a lot of flaps, do they have spoilers to help, or just increased aileron chord?

[SheriffPatGarrett]

Seen them Pilatus in Cali, Colombia. Looked awful beat up! Long narrow cabin,
not very practical, useless in Canada.
When I asked around what they where used for, I only got winks...

Next to it, there was an Antonov 2(pretty short takeoff too)
Also, (I wish I had taken some pics)that famous Convair 580
that flew the following month non stop from Cali to Casey, Quebec for the HAs...
That stunt caused quite a stir at the time as the
narks spotted them as soon as Florida
but at the time had nothing to intercept it.

Similar look as this one(The "Roi du Nord" Jean Claude Tremblay's Nolinor AKA Air Saguenay jumping the blocks), wrecking an elevator and a Chieftain.

http://nycaviation.com/2011/03/cargo-pl ... -revelers/

[just curious]

A DHC-6 will takeoff from 14800 at minus 50 at gross.
It will not exactly leap into the sky. Twin Otters love sea level.

[PanEuropean]

Just for curious: is any GA aircraft (non helicopter) able to take off at SPRF elev. 14423 ft and land at Sea Level at 100 ft runway?

A more interesting question would be not whether the aircraft is physically capable of accomplishing that, but whether or not the aircraft manufacturer provides performance charts that extend to aerodrome elevations above 10,000 feet. If you don't have performance charts to substantiate what you are trying to do, then you are going to have a hard time doing it (legally) in commercial service.

Michael

[trey kule]

Ok...

9400 ASL. ISA plus 12.....1700 feet. Done daily.
Your TAS at altitude is higher, your power is down (particularily with dash 20s), and you are almost on the back side...No go around options one you get close in. And you do it daily...or until you crash.

The DHC types are interesting in that the controls almost feel lighter as you slow them down, and they tend to make a fairly quick transition to the far back side of the curve. Nothing like no tolerance for error, a sudden change in the pitch as you transition, and lighter controls to provide focus.

This stuff, quit frankly , is a lot more fun to talk about and watch than do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeH4_cCIVjQ

[all_ramped_up]

http://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/p-7 ... escription

These little things are quite the machines as well.

[Heliian]

Storch?

[zk850]

Hi Guys.

Just discovered this AvCanada, great site. I fly Porters in West Papua, they are a great machine and well suited to this environment. I disagree with the above comment about it being dangerous. It requires discipline, good habits + knowing your limits. We are lucky that we have such a great aircraft for the work we do. The guy's I really respect are the ones that have done our job in the years gone by in the 185's, helio's, 206's e.t.c. For interests sake the highest airstrip we operate out of here is around 9000 feet and maybe 450m long with nil slope. The Porter will drag 7pax + pilot and bags out of there with nil wind on the nose and a density alt of 12500 feet...pretty impressive. It will continue to climb at around 700 / 800 fpm above 10000 with a full load (850kg + 3 hrs fuel,) where as the PAC 750 XL is back to 300 / 400 fpm (1050 kg + 2.5hrs fuel.)

Cheers - Zk

[kilpicki]

All hail the mighty Porter.

You should see it perform with a -34 bolted on.

[Midnight Sun Flyer]

They also offer a 1000hp version

http://www.sherpaaircraft.com/video.html

For Performance and Reliability it's going to be awful tough to beat the DHC-2 Turbo Beaver with the -27, I seen a feller land a take of on a pan of ice that was no more than 300 feet long and didn't need half of it on a rescue flight.
the Turbine Otter will get airborne a little quicker on wheels.

[kilpicki]

No doubt the DHC-2 and 3 are great STOL machines, BUT why is it that they have no or very little prescence around the globe while the Turbo PC6 has a BIG prescence in remote areas.
You can buy a new PC6 and they are not cheap and as we know there ar lots of DHC-2 airframes around for conversions, but fact is the Porter is out there and the DeHav products are not.

[Midnight Sun Flyer]

No doubt the DHC-2 and 3 are great STOL machines, BUT why is it that they have no or very little prescence around the globe while the Turbo PC6 has a BIG prescence in remote areas.
You can buy a new PC6 and they are not cheap and as we know there ar lots of DHC-2 airframes around for conversions, but fact is the Porter is out there and the DeHav products are not.

de Havilland Canada built about 1,692 Beavers and out of that only 60 were completed as DHC-2 Mk III Turbo Beavers with the -6 and -20 engines and the last production Beaver aircraft at de Havilland was in May 1968., I believe the problem was they never promoted the Beaver any more and just promoted the Twin Otters, Jets and bigger Military Aircraft where the big money was. Now with all the up-grades and bigger engines the Turbo Beaver is a much better aircraft than when they were first build back in the mid 60’s I believe there were about 550 Pilatus Porter PC-6’s build. I honestly believe the Turbo Beaver is the best aircraft ever build in her class; anywhere the PC-6 can operate safely the Turbo Beaver would have no problem either with an experienced Pilot.

The Legend Continues
http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=270

[kilpicki]

As I mentioned the PC6 is still in production. I saw the jiged one being built and heard the rivets being pounded when I was at Staad.

Also know the Turbo Beaver, worked on OEI with the -6 in it.

If you're running a extreme extreme STOL machine in a extreme remote part of the world chances are your're not new in aviation and know you're options like getting a DHC airframe and putting a 27 or better yet a 34 in it.
So you tell me why the PC6 is out there and not the Beaver?
It's obvious you know more than the operators in PNG, Algeria, Eritrea, Ethopia,S.A, and a lot more countries so please tell us.

[Midnight Sun Flyer]

As I mentioned the PC6 is still in production. I saw the jiged one being built and heard the rivets being pounded when I was at Staad.

Also know the Turbo Beaver, worked on OEI with the -6 in it.

If you're running a extreme extreme STOL machine in a extreme remote part of the world chances are your're not new in aviation and know you're options like getting a DHC airframe and putting a 27 or better yet a 34 in it.
So you tell me why the PC6 is out there and not the Beaver?
It's obvious you know more than the operators in PNG, Algeria, Eritrea, Ethopia,S.A, and a lot more countries so please tell us.

I don’t know why there are more PC-6 than Turbo Beavers ? I haven’t flown out side North America but In my 35 years flying in Canada and Alaska I only seen one PC-6 that was in the western Arctic nice aircraft but like I said I never flown one and wouldn’t trade for a Turbine Beaver, with over 3000 hours on Turbo beavers never lost a single days work due to maientence other than regular inspections.

Stats…Out of the 550 Pilatus PC-6’s built approximately 260 still active, 20 being rebuild, 152 written-off and 100 scrapped.


http://wn.com/Dehavilland_Beaver_Turbine

[zk850]

What kind of load's / speeds are a Turbo Beaver achieving? Can it be changed from cargo to pax config easily in the field? Is the airframe torque limited with say a -34 in it? (I'm talking wheels here.) The only advantage of having a -34 in a Porter is that you have more performance at altitude. The reason being that the airframe is limited to torque on the tail section. (Company, not flight manual, full power heigh occurs at around 10,000 feet with a -27 and 14,000 feet with a -34.) The flight manual torque limit for a Porter is 47.3 PSI making it flat rated at 550 HP where as the -27 is capable of achieving around 675 HP I believe.

The Beaver would require more proficient pilot's and it would be less forgiving on rough unprepared mountain strips. The reason the Porter works so well here are the shock absorber leg's which are forbearing when operating on these rough jungle airstrips.

Good discussion - Zk

[kilpicki]

There is or was a Porter in "The Wells" One in Whitehorse for Yukon Airways in the past and the one in the movie Never Cry Wolf was from Whistler or Pemberton or thereby, a jumpzone in Quebec used one. Just the ones I know of off the top of my head.

Your info about 550 built is not correct, they are still in production and I was in S.N 916 or 926 the other day. Did training in a brand new one with O2 and AC, all the options.
Ugly at first but you learn to like them

[PanEuropean]

I think it is kind of hopeless to attempt to compare the DHC-2T Beaver and the PC-6 Porter (the B2-H4 variant, which is equipped with the PT-6).

The Turbo Beaver had a very brief production run in the middle of the 1960s, following the production of the piston Beaver that began in 1947. PC-6 B2-H4 production began about when the Turbo Beaver production stopped. The PC-6 is still in production today, new ones are equipped with Garmin G-1000 avionics suites.

Although both aircraft are designed for short field work, they are very different. About all you can say in a conversation like this is that both aircraft have very good reputations, and both do the job they were designed to do very well.

Kilpicki is correct, the current SN's of the Porters in production today are in the low 900s. I don't know if Pilatus started with 1 or 100 as the first SN, but either way, there have been far, far more than 500 Porters produced.

[StudentPilot]

I always figured a Porter would be quite comparable to a Turbo Beaver given both were designed for STOL utility and they are of similar size, weight and passenger capacity. The performance numbers I could find say they would perform similarly. Not having experience on type, just what is it that makes these two types uncomparable when they seem so similar?

P.S. http://pc-6.com says there are 282 Porters operational of 562 built, with SN 979 registered to Pilatus a couple weeks ago.

[kilpicki]

Companies that place a machine in a remote part of the world are uesing a lot of resourses and their advisors/auditors tell them not to use a old by years machines.

Perhaps this is why the DHC-2 MK11 has been limited to Canada/N America and the mighty Porter has the rest of the world.

[rigpiggy]

The Old boss ran a pc-6 which is a better stol machine than the beaver, however built lighter, and isn't a timex, ie; takes a licking and keeps on ticking. While his bird was being rebuilt, he leased a turboBeaver, the Porter was sold shortly thereafter. Also in canada the 6100#gross is not approved, or at least wasn't at that time

[MUSICMAAN]

I think the reason the Porter is still used and is the STOL aircraft of choice in the rest of the world is pure availability. It's really the only proven STOL aircraft around still in production. I would lay money on it that the Turbo Beaver would do everything the Porter does, and just as well. Infact, it does do everything the Porter does, just in different parts of the world. The Porter however, has in its favor a wider fuselage and some hella big sliding cargo doors.

As for Porters in Canada, there are three. One in Norman wells, one in a hangar, and the 3rd used for skydiving in Abbotsford. I think the reason they're not popular here is the cost of maintenance, and the fact that they are not built tough like the de Havilland product.
A well known Canadian bush Porter owner and pilot here in Canada told me that the only reason he had a Porter, is that it would out perform a (piston) Beaver. But he went on to say that on the other hand, and I quote, "you can fly a Beaver all season long, put it in the hangar at the end of the year, and fix a few things... the Porter, you fly all season long, put it in the hangar at the end of the year, and re-build it."

I am a huge Porter fan, and went so far as to tour the Pilatus factory in Switzerland. I saw the Porter in various stages of construction. I will say, that it is a well built aircraft..... but it ain't no de Havilland!

As for the original question, I stand by my earlier post, a Garret powered Otter, especially with the -12, would not only fly circles around the Porter at any altitude, it would haul more, and do it for less.

this has been the sole opinion of,

MM

[Midnight Sun Flyer]

I think the reason the Porter is still used and is the STOL aircraft of choice in the rest of the world is pure availability. It's really the only proven STOL aircraft around still in production. I would lay money on it that the Turbo Beaver would do everything the Porter does, and just as well. Infact, it does do everything the Porter does, just in different parts of the world. The Porter however, has in its favor a wider fuselage and some hella big sliding cargo doors.

As for Porters in Canada, there are three. One in Norman wells, one in a hangar, and the 3rd used for skydiving in Abbotsford. I think the reason they're not popular here is the cost of maintenance, and the fact that they are not built tough like the de Havilland product.
A well known Canadian bush Porter owner and pilot here in Canada told me that the only reason he had a Porter, is that it would out perform a (piston) Beaver. But he went on to say that on the other hand, and I quote, "you can fly a Beaver all season long, put it in the hangar at the end of the year, and fix a few things... the Porter, you fly all season long, put it in the hangar at the end of the year, and re-build it."

I am a huge Porter fan, and went so far as to tour the Pilatus factory in Switzerland. I saw the Porter in various stages of construction. I will say, that it is a well built aircraft..... but it ain't no de Havilland!

As for the original question, I stand by my earlier post, a Garret powered Otter, especially with the -12, would not only fly circles around the Porter at any altitude, it would haul more, and do it for less.

this has been the sole opinion of,

MM

I agree 100-percent the Porter is a nice STOL aircraft but no match for the de Havilland Beaver or Otter when it comes to reliability and performance combined. I knew a Turbo Beaver that flew 1200 hours, year in and year out Wheel/skis and floats with the very minimum of maientence done at change over from floats to skis vise/versus other than regular inspections. As for landing on Top of Mountains in Canada we use Helicopters for that!!!Safety first. Just Look at the Stats on the Porters out of the 550 Pilatus PC-6’s built approximately 260 still active, 20 being rebuild, 152 written-off and 100 scrapped.

I agree with you here too… As for the original question, I stand by my earlier post, a Garret powered Otter, especially with the -12, would not only fly circles around the Porter at any altitude, it would haul more, and do it for less.

Nothing out there now that can compete with the New Turbine Powered DHC-3T higher gross weight along with huge cargo door and all.
can even haul more than a Twin Otter on a long haul with only half the fuel burn.