DHC announces DHC-6-300G

[W5]

https://www.inflight-online.com/paris-a ... sic-300-g/

De Havilland Canada launched its DHC-6 Twin Otter® Classic 300-G™ at the Paris Air Show this morning with combined purchase agreements and letters of intent totalling 45 aircraft.

“For over 50 years, the DHC-6 Twin Otter has stood alone as the most reliable and versatile aircraft in its class,” said Brian Chafe, CEO of De Havilland Canada.

“After extensive consultation with our customers, we are poised and proud to take this iconic aircraft to new heights with the new DHC-6 Twin Otter Classic 300-G.”

According to Chafe, the lighter weight Classic 300-G will deliver increased payload range and decreased operating costs for customers. “Along with an all-new cabin interior and flight deck featuring the Garmin G1000® NXi fully integrated avionics suite, De Havilland Canada is once again driving the utility transport aircraft market forward.”

The aircraft is the fifth generation of the Twin Otter aircraft, with all DHC-6 Twin Otters carrying passengers, transport VIPs and cargo. They also conduct medivac operations and perform special missions in unforgiving environments. The aircraft can move seamlessly between paved surfaces and water-landing areas when mounted on amphibious floats.

“De Havilland Canada continues to shape aviation with innovative utility aircraft, and we are proud to offer our G1000 NXi integrated flight deck with the latest version of the iconic DHC-6 Twin Otter,” said Carl Wolf, Garmin Vice President of Aviation Sales and Marketing.

“The G1000 NXi will bring wireless cockpit connectivity, enhanced situational awareness, visual approach capability, and our fully integrated GFC™ 700 autopilot with envelope protection to the Classic 300-G aircraft.”

Add: https://www.globalair.com/articles/de-h ... sic-300-g-

[Mr. North]

So will the 300G be STOL certified? I believe the 400 series was not.

What are the minimum temps for the digital avionics? Are you able to fire up the engines without having to preheat the avionics first?

[Meatservo]

Too fussy. Let's see one without all the expensive "wireless" touchscreen junk, and a lightweight short nose. More tie-down rings in the cabin, some better insulation and sound-proofing, a more durable interior and more auxiliary wing fuel capacity. Reintroduce the cabin roof escape hatch. Maybe invent a way for the engines to make cabin heat on the ground, like ducting the compressor bleed valve efflux into the cabin when the engines are idling.

Otherwise the Twin was perfect the way it was. Stop trying to turn it into a pointy-nosed micro-airbus. Try addressing some real gripes with the original. No Twin Otter pilots are complaining about a lack of wireless connectivity or "envelope protection". No Twin Otter pilots are getting lost because they don't have some cartoon-o-vision screens telling them where they are or which way is "up". They want a lighter ship with better range and more cargo-handling features that doesn't freeze the balls off of them in the winter.

[fish4life]

Too fussy. Let's see one without all the expensive "wireless" touchscreen junk, and a lightweight short nose. More tie-down rings in the cabin, some better insulation and sound-proofing, a more durable interior and more auxiliary wing fuel capacity. Reintroduce the cabin roof escape hatch. Maybe invent a way for the engines to make cabin heat on the ground, like ducting the compressor bleed valve efflux into the cabin when the engines are idling.

Otherwise the Twin was perfect the way it was. Stop trying to turn it into a pointy-nosed micro-airbus. Try addressing some real gripes with the original. No Twin Otter pilots are complaining about a lack of wireless connectivity or "envelope protection". No Twin Otter pilots are getting lost because they don't have some cartoon-o-vision screens telling them where they are or which way is "up". They want a lighter ship with better range and more cargo-handling features that doesn't freeze the balls off of them in the winter.

No twin otter pilots in Canada, there is lots of the world where twin otters are flown by much less experienced pilots. Keep in mind they are selling these planes to businesses not pilots and if something like envelope protection helps lower some insurance cost a company will hop all over it.

[I WAS Pez]

Can't speak to any specifics on the DHC-6, but as far as new instruments go.... In general, the more modern glass systems in GA airplanes are lighter, simpler (in terms of wiring, plumbing, and troubleshooting) than the legacy steam dials and radios, and more reliable. Same with the modern autopilots... So.... Pretty much any new airplane variants are going to have them, which is probably not a bad thing, on balance. In many cases, these systems will also be cheaper than legacy when installation labour factored in.

Doesn't change anything else about the airplane, and perhaps there are other things to address - but I'd expect most new airplanes, certainly IFR airplanes, to have glass of some sort, regardless of anything else that's done.

[WestTexasDeathPencil]

Too fussy. Let's see one without all the expensive "wireless" touchscreen junk, and a lightweight short nose. More tie-down rings in the cabin, some better insulation and sound-proofing, a more durable interior and more auxiliary wing fuel capacity. Reintroduce the cabin roof escape hatch. Maybe invent a way for the engines to make cabin heat on the ground, like ducting the compressor bleed valve efflux into the cabin when the engines are idling.

Otherwise the Twin was perfect the way it was. Stop trying to turn it into a pointy-nosed micro-airbus. Try addressing some real gripes with the original. No Twin Otter pilots are complaining about a lack of wireless connectivity or "envelope protection". No Twin Otter pilots are getting lost because they don't have some cartoon-o-vision screens telling them where they are or which way is "up". They want a lighter ship with better range and more cargo-handling features that doesn't freeze the balls off of them in the winter.

If customers wanted these features, they would be there. The original long nose was made of fibreglass and balsa wood, whereas the 400s use composites I believe. Probably as light as they could practicably be. More tie down rings would be nice, but in order to support any meaningful amount of weight, the structural supports would probably have to beefed up considerably. Having flown these machines for a while, there’s no amount of sound deadening material that’ll make them quiet. Might not be practical to increase the size of the tip tanks without a modifying the wings significantly, and outside of ferry operations there really isn’t much need for more than five hours of endurance. Not to mention they add 140 lbs to the empty weight as it is. The structural provisions for the roof hatch are still there, but considering how few operators do ski work (the only reason it’s actually needed, and only in certain jurisdictions), it’s not worth including as standard equipment. Most 300s didn’t even have them. Outside of radiant heat or janitrol heaters, there’s no practical way to get cabin heat on the ground. I doubt P&W would be interested in screwing around with engine designs that have been around since most if not all of their engineers were even born.

Also, glass avionics are generally a lot lighter than the legacy equipment they replace. My outfit recently has been retrofitting our B200s with G1000 packages and the empty weights are ~200 lbs lighter. Makes a pretty big difference.

[WestTexasDeathPencil]

So will the 300G be STOL certified? I believe the 400 series was not.

What are the minimum temps for the digital avionics? Are you able to fire up the engines without having to preheat the avionics first?

If you’re referring to RGR ops, the 400 is certified for it. I believe it’s a factory option for the avionics, unless you’re fine ignoring the config warnings on takeoff.

[TailwheelPilot]

I am surprised about the change from Honeywell in the -400s to G1000s. It seems like sticking with the same avionics would be simpler and easier.

More tie down rings would be nice, but in order to support any meaningful amount of weight, the structural supports would probably have to beefed up considerably.

I have only been around Twin Otters with utility seats and the cargo rings about 6" from the floor (which seem annoying) and just recently found out the commuter seats used brownline track (and it appears to be the same in the interior photo at the link in the first post). The Flight Safety book said nothing about load ratings when talking about the brownline track...are they limited in how much they can restrain? I figured they hold the seats, so are at least as strong as in the Caravan. Not to mention I was surprised to see they were optional.

[goldeneagle]

So will the 300G be STOL certified? I believe the 400 series was not.

I read a different announcement elsewhere, dont remember where, and it specifically stated it is STOL certified.

[digits_]

So will the 300G be STOL certified? I believe the 400 series was not.

I read a different announcement elsewhere, dont remember where, and it specifically stated it is STOL certified.

What does STOL certification mean? Is it just a set of performance numbers to meet, or is there more to it?

[WestTexasDeathPencil]

I am surprised about the change from Honeywell in the -400s to G1000s. It seems like sticking with the same avionics would be simpler and easier.

More tie down rings would be nice, but in order to support any meaningful amount of weight, the structural supports would probably have to beefed up considerably.

I have only been around Twin Otters with utility seats and the cargo rings about 6" from the floor (which seem annoying) and just recently found out the commuter seats used brownline track (and it appears to be the same in the interior photo at the link in the first post). The Flight Safety book said nothing about load ratings when talking about the brownline track...are they limited in how much they can restrain? I figured they hold the seats, so are at least as strong as in the Caravan. Not to mention I was surprised to see they were optional.

I honestly don’t know what they’re rated for. One of the main contracts my company had was servicing a gold mine that was only accessible by air 10 months out of the year, so virtually everything had to be flown in. This includes large and heavy equipment; a lot of the items were 2,000 lbs or more. we basically just put at many straps around them as we practically could to keep them in place. This includes using the D-rings on the walls, as well as removable anchors in the seat rails. Never had any issues with the rings or seat rails being damaged or torn out.

I know in the case of other aircraft, when using seat rail anchors they need to be spaced X feet apart to distribute the load effectively across the structure. I don’t think there’s any published limitation in the case of the twin otter, but I always made sure to spread them out as much as I could.