• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

De Havilland Cannada announces new calgary manufacturing facility

Or how about a turboprop version of the M-130 Clipper?

images
 
Retired AF Guy said:
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy some CL-415s and paint them green?
Click to expand...
No loading ramp, not pressurized, light range . . . Then again, it would be interesting to see the range - or airspeed - of a floaty Herc.

At least it's amphibious. I'm just seeing renderings, but I don't see images or mention of wheels on the Herc.
 
FWIW, the Germans made extensive use of seaplanes during the Norway invasion of 1940.

In some cases they used them to 'outflank' allied roadblocks on the E6, close to the coast. They seemed to have a range of challenges related to survivability though...

AirHistory.net - Airlift into Narvik

History and photos of the airlift in support of German invasion troops in Narvik, Norway, in April-May 1940. Besieged by Allied troops, the Germans in Narvik did not control an airfield. The Luftwaffe used seaplanes and airdrops to deliver supplies and reinforcements, and boldy sent a squadron...
www.airhistory.net www.airhistory.net
 
Just putting this as a Postscript.

www.flightglobal.com

SpaceJet test aircraft demolished at Moses Lake

Wrecking crews dismantled one of Mitsubishi Aircraft's SpaceJet prototype regional jets at Moses Lake on 8 March, physically and symbolically closing a chapter on Japan's once-ambitious regional jet programme.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

A Japanese Avro type story.
 
I don't even know where to start with piece. Some of it whining about Quebec losing the CL-415 project. But it was last built in North Bay ON. I guess some engineering left in Montreal?...that was not mentioned. And that they why didn't use the new (old line) name of the company that has the Aiworthness Cert. Dehavilland Canada (Viking renamed themselves) Plus the new marketing name of the new build waterbomber is DHC-515. Also Viking/DHC has been maintaining and overhauling the different models and fleets for years. The piece did even say there was a problem with parts or engineering support of current units. Just that they are old in years.....but I would put to you they are younger in cycles. What does a CL-415 get in hours a years? I get the scooping could be hard on the airframe but I am assuming they are inspected and maintained to a high level.

"Aviation experts say Canada is losing expertise in the manufacturing of water bombers — just as demand for them is increasing."

But the piece say Viking (DHC) is building a brand new plant to build them. Editoral thought here...Is the Aviation expertise that is lost not in Montreal the problem?

/www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/experts-worry-about-canadian-water-bomber-expertise-with-rising-demand-aging-fleets/ar-AA1chh97?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=f21df31c9c554982a854be2009a4ba37&ei=13
 
Spencer100 said:
Sorry here is the link

Click to expand...
Keep in mind the CL-215 / CL-215T / CL-415 is also only one airframe in use. Yes it can be an effective airframe with the right conditions and can operate amphibious reloading or via hard tarmac tanker bases. But off hand...

Air Tractor AT-802 based upon a crop duster design are extremely popular and used by many provinces. They also make AT-802U models which can "scoop" water.

Lockhead L-188 Electras (what you navy guys might know as a P-3) are still common especially out in western Canada. These are some of the older airframes around but are not the only option.

RJ-85/BAE-146 - these are a late 1960's air frame that differs mostly by Engines. Basically moving from turbo props to jet age but are present in both USA and Canada.

Convair -580's. Not sure if any are in service this year but if not were just recently retired. Based upon a 1950's airliner

Bombardier Dash-8 Q400's - Conair has at least one airframe working in Canada but this is a Canadian plane that was engineered for hard tarmac water bombing operations based upon the demands of France. IIRC there is a small squadron of these in France.

Coulson has 2? 3? C-130's - these are C-130Q and L-100? models that were converted to air tankers similar to what the USAir NG does with their MAFF's units. Contracted to Australia during our Winters at least one is on active ops.

Pick your poison. There are many different ways to fight fires and not all are dependent upon a single airframe.
 
Spencer100 said:
I don't even know where to start with piece. Some of it whining about Quebec losing the CL-415 project. But it was last built in North Bay ON. I guess some engineering left in Montreal?...that was not mentioned. And that they why didn't use the new (old line) name of the company that has the Aiworthness Cert. Dehavilland Canada (Viking renamed themselves) Plus the new marketing name of the new build waterbomber is DHC-515. Also Viking/DHC has been maintaining and overhauling the different models and fleets for years. The piece did even say there was a problem with parts or engineering support of current units. Just that they are old in years.....but I would put to you they are younger in cycles. What does a CL-415 get in hours a years? I get the scooping could be hard on the airframe but I am assuming they are inspected and maintained to a high level.

"Aviation experts say Canada is losing expertise in the manufacturing of water bombers — just as demand for them is increasing."

But the piece say Viking (DHC) is building a brand new plant to build them. Editoral thought here...Is the Aviation expertise that is lost not in Montreal the problem?

/www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/experts-worry-about-canadian-water-bomber-expertise-with-rising-demand-aging-fleets/ar-AA1chh97?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=f21df31c9c554982a854be2009a4ba37&ei=13
Click to expand...
I'm not that close to the issue but I think (stand to be corrected) that the 415s were 'finished' in North Bay from airworthy aircraft that were flown in from Quebec. It is my understanding that they closed the line for lack of sales; pretty much everybody that wanted or needed one, had one.

No doubt the water bombing cycle is hard on airframes. I doubt Ontario has used anything but DeHaviland/Canadair/BBD aircraft in forest service since the 1960s. The CL-415s (I don;t think they have any 215s left) pretty much sit parked in the off-season; whereas their Otters, Beavers and variants are used year-round for other purposes. The advantage Ontario has is their forested area is also home to numerous lakes which favours amphibious water pick-up vs. having to return to an airport for water or retardant. The Ontario Aviation Services fleet is a whole lot smaller than it used to be and that is probably reflected in other provinces too. The Ontario MNRF has had its budget beaten to death for a couple of decades now which is probably coming home to roost in a bad fire season.
 
A lot of the Air tanker debate is trying to prove mine is better then yours. Lots of places are converting airframes that are available and out of service elsewhere and able to continue in this role. They are using a 747 down in the US right now.
Most of the airframes are modified to fill the role. Where as the CL series were purpose built and been very good at the job they do for many years. That is not say there is not something better. But as time goes on the platform is upgraded, upsized and becomes more successful.
They are one of the few purpose built planes in the world for fighting fires, in high demand and doing a outstanding job. Best of all it is a Canadian company.

I think a B52 with water tanks could be an amazing platform to transform into a water bomber. Huge load, good power and very maneuverable. Heck load the F18 with five external tanks with dump doors and you have a 9000liter capacity. Quick turn around mach to the drop, slow, drop, mach home. Fill repeat. :rolleyes:
 
foresterab said:
Keep in mind the CL-215 / CL-215T / CL-415 is also only one airframe in use. Yes it can be an effective airframe with the right conditions and can operate amphibious reloading or via hard tarmac tanker bases. But off hand...

Air Tractor AT-802 based upon a crop duster design are extremely popular and used by many provinces. They also make AT-802U models which can "scoop" water.

Lockhead L-188 Electras (what you navy guys might know as a P-3) are still common especially out in western Canada. These are some of the older airframes around but are not the only option.

RJ-85/BAE-146 - these are a late 1960's air frame that differs mostly by Engines. Basically moving from turbo props to jet age but are present in both USA and Canada.

Convair -580's. Not sure if any are in service this year but if not were just recently retired. Based upon a 1950's airliner

Bombardier Dash-8 Q400's - Conair has at least one airframe working in Canada but this is a Canadian plane that was engineered for hard tarmac water bombing operations based upon the demands of France. IIRC there is a small squadron of these in France.

Coulson has 2? 3? C-130's - these are C-130Q and L-100? models that were converted to air tankers similar to what the USAir NG does with their MAFF's units. Contracted to Australia during our Winters at least one is on active ops.

Pick your poison. There are many different ways to fight fires and not all are dependent upon a single airframe.
Click to expand...

Tronos Aviation in Summerside P.E.I. was converting BAE-146's to air tankers. I'm not sure how many they completed or if they are still doing it. Their website no longer mentions air tankers.

Neptune aviation operates 9 BAE-146's and I know two came from Tronos. I'm not sure of the others. I believe they were as when I was there Tronos had a lot of 146's parked at their facility.
 
childs56 said:
A lot of the Air tanker debate is trying to prove mine is better then yours. Lots of places are converting airframes that are available and out of service elsewhere and able to continue in this role. They are using a 747 down in the US right now.
Most of the airframes are modified to fill the role. Where as the CL series were purpose built and been very good at the job they do for many years. That is not say there is not something better. But as time goes on the platform is upgraded, upsized and becomes more successful.
They are one of the few purpose built planes in the world for fighting fires, in high demand and doing a outstanding job. Best of all it is a Canadian company.

I think a B52 with water tanks could be an amazing platform to transform into a water bomber. Huge load, good power and very maneuverable. Heck load the F18 with five external tanks with dump doors and you have a 9000liter capacity. Quick turn around mach to the drop, slow, drop, mach home. Fill repeat. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think most of the 'really big stuff' converted commercial aircraft are used for delivering retardant rather than water and I think it can be deployed at higher altitudes and still be effective.

I have no idea what the ideal 'dumping speed' or altitude of the 415 is but I doubt any fast jet could get down there, but it would be interesting to watch it try.
 
lenaitch said:
I think most of the 'really big stuff' converted commercial aircraft are used for delivering retardant rather than water and I think it can be deployed at higher altitudes and still be effective.
Click to expand...
They do both water and retardant jobs. Have to be low and slow to drop.
lenaitch said:
I have no idea what the ideal 'dumping speed' or altitude of the 415 is but I doubt any fast jet could get down there, but it would be interesting to watch it try.
Click to expand...
I would get some popcorn and a beer to watch.
 
Dana381 said:
Tronos Aviation in Summerside P.E.I. was converting BAE-146's to air tankers. I'm not sure how many they completed or if they are still doing it. Their website no longer mentions air tankers.

Neptune aviation operates 9 BAE-146's and I know two came from Tronos. I'm not sure of the others. I believe they were as when I was there Tronos had a lot of 146's parked at their facility.
Click to expand...
Airspray operates the BAE 146 aerial tankers out of the states.
 
From Spencer100s link:

Referring to the CL-215, Ebrahimi said, "these are planes that we produced and we can't repair them? What happened there? Where has the expertise gone in the meantime?"
Click to expand...

Dead. Retired. Moved. Found other gainful employment.
Because Canada wasn't buying. Nor was it selling.
 
Dana381 said:
Tronos Aviation in Summerside P.E.I. was converting BAE-146's to air tankers. I'm not sure how many they completed or if they are still doing it. Their website no longer mentions air tankers.

Neptune aviation operates 9 BAE-146's and I know two came from Tronos. I'm not sure of the others. I believe they were as when I was there Tronos had a lot of 146's parked at their facility.
Click to expand...
Both Neptune (based out of Missoula Montana) and Conair (Abbotsford BC) have Bae-146's/RJ85's. Nice looking units but have only walked around them on tarmac at both home bases. Unclear what Conair has in France off hand.
 
childs56 said:
A lot of the Air tanker debate is trying to prove mine is better then yours. Lots of places are converting airframes that are available and out of service elsewhere and able to continue in this role. They are using a 747 down in the US right now.
Most of the airframes are modified to fill the role. Where as the CL series were purpose built and been very good at the job they do for many years. That is not say there is not something better. But as time goes on the platform is upgraded, upsized and becomes more successful.
They are one of the few purpose built planes in the world for fighting fires, in high demand and doing a outstanding job. Best of all it is a Canadian company.

I think a B52 with water tanks could be an amazing platform to transform into a water bomber. Huge load, good power and very maneuverable. Heck load the F18 with five external tanks with dump doors and you have a 9000liter capacity. Quick turn around mach to the drop, slow, drop, mach home. Fill repeat. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the -747, like the IL-76 used by Russia, basically have such a load wait that unless you have a Strategic Air Command Runway suitable for fully loaded B-52's...it's a no go.

Even the DC-10 and MD-87? passenger jets require major bases to reload off of.

Most of the larger tankers do not drop a "slug" effect like the Martin Mars did but more of a controlled jet on retardant, some of which may be air boosted to empty tanks, to create a stream of water that covers much more ground (i.e. more line controlled) and/or doesn't smash the timber underneath as bad making it safer for ground crews to follow up on.

Bigger is not always better...especially if you have limited infrastructure to support them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

daftandbarmy
2023 Layoff Tracker: Latest Meta Cuts Could Hit 4,000
2
Replies
31
Views
28K
mariomike
mariomike
Kirkhill
Norway, NATO, F35s, P8s and AIP Subs.....and much much more
Replies
0
Views
10K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Back
Top