Civilian DHC-5 Buffalo

[Treetopflyer]

Hi all,

I figured this is the best place to ask this question as there is probably amongst you quite a few ex-Buf' drivers:

The DHC-5D is the latest Buffalo version, mostly sold to foreign military operators. It features CT64-820-4 engines & 49000 lbs MTOW.

There is no mention about the DHC-5D version on Transport Canada civilian type certificate list. The closest I can find there is the DHC-5E.

--> My question: can anyone of you tell me what modifications need to be made to a military -5D to bring it to civilian -5E standards?

Thanks in advance.

[skyhawk1]

Are you trying to gain Transport Canada certification to operate it in Canada?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Air Tindi in Yellowknife has just started operating a Buff which I believe is X- military so there must be an approved civilianization program. TC in Edmonton would have been the approving authority so you could probably get the scoop from them.

[CD]

Are you maybe thinking of Arctic Sunwest? Air Tindi does not have a DHC-5 on their OC but Arctic Sunwest has C-FASY which is listed as a DHC-5A(Civil). It has a "restricted" flight authority and the type certificate is A-124 vs. the A-77 for the DHC-5 and DHC-5E.

Search the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register (http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/activepages/ccarcs/en/current_e.asp#quick?x_lang=e)

Type Certificates (http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/stc/intro_e.html)

Air Operator Search Page (http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/ActivePages/AirOp/aosearch.asp)

[yazman]

There also is (or was) at least one Buffalo on the US register, noted it at Anchorage last summer. And that's not counting NASA's experimental wing-blower with turbofans.

[Treetopflyer]

Skyhawk1

It is not to operate in Canada, but simply to give the aircraft an internationaly accepted registration. DHC-5s can't be registered in old Europe, so Canada and the USA are the only alternatives to having the aircraft registered in countries like Swaziland or Equatorial Guinea.

Big Pistons Forever

Yeah... Gimmie a double-row radial or nothing...:ok: I'll try to contact these guys in Edmonton.

CD

The A-124 certificate is for DHC-5A (civil) models. Some -5Ds like C-FASY of Yellowknife have been converted from -5D to -5A (civil), however it seems rather tedious as it implies an engines change -- to lower horsepower -1 or -3 engines! The DHC-5E version provided in the A-77 certificate, which fits s/n 108 and onwards, seems much closer to the -5D -- same engines and props, at least. Dunno what the other differences are, though.

Yazman

Public Service out of Anchorage operates DHC-5 s/n 3, so like you say there must be a way to go with the FAA too. As for the NASA one, it is probably considered 'experimental', though...

[skyhawk1]

I don't know much about the buffalo in general - but I have imported different variants of other aircraft that weren't on the TC type certificate.

If the D model is pretty much identical to the other models than it should not need any other mods except whatever the others needed (eg. fireblocked cargo liners, CDR and FDR instalation or operating limitations) then an application is made and TC adds it to the type certificate. They only thing that may hold you up is the engines and props. If they haven't been certified in Canada you may find it easier to swap engines to a different type. Or again - if they are similar, it could be as easy as an application.

TC will be able to guide you. It also helps immensly if you have a letter from the manufacture of the major components (bombardiar, Hamilton standard, GE) that they have no objections to these parts being run in a civilian fashion, and that they are similar to the models found on the other Buffalos. (On rare occurances manufactures have said in the past that they will not support a product any longer, or support it in a civilian operation - in which case TC won't approve it)

Hope this helps.

[Treetopflyer]

Thanx Skyhawk1. Makes sense. I am now in touch with Transport Canada and Bombardier, and they should have the rest of the answers.

[GBender]

T/Tops

The requirements to convert the aircraft is listed in the Type Certification, however this would not be the problem if you wanted to attmpt this.

The problem is the historical records to confirm and qualify the life limited components. As most aircraft were military controlled many civil authorities will not accept these records.

5A (civil) aircraft have the same powerplant and propeller combination as the 5D and the 5E. Differences are airframe mods obviously removal of the military equipment and addition of equipment for civil requirements.

Engines props are civil certified and airframes with a suffix "A" after the serial number are civil certified.

cheers

[russellackland]

Hello,

I just taught (july) the last ground school class for Arctic Sunwest Charters on the DHC-5 they have in YZF. My former Commanding Officer from 442 sqn (comox) is the training pilot for ASC at this time. If you have any questions I may be able to answer more later. However to answer in general; the cost of certifying a canadian military aircraft would be absolutely cost prohibitive if it even can be done.....way too many mods. Even if you did, the useable payload wouldn't be much above 11000lbs. The aircraft up there has a capacity of 18000. They are leasing it and will make the decision to keep it (and a second) by the end of the month. It is only used for cargo. I don't have the TC docs with me anymore (mar 04 - amended) - but the they essentially recertified the A model with new max gross weights up to 49200. previously i think the max was 41000. The military A/C are close to D model but with quite a few differences. Piitch selector, no cargo smoke, no GPWS, and more stuff i am sure lacking for certifiaction. The company in Anchorage does not have their Buffalo anymore & they were only certified up to 41000 (not much payload capacity= not much profit).

[dooner]

If I can scratch the rust off my brain cells and look back to the late 80's when I flew the Buff out of Comox, I remember having a discussion with a group of guys from Austin Airways and they had looked at purchasing the D models for work around Northern Ontario.

The big drawback was the requirement to add all the "segmented climb" performance as required by TC. After applying all the applicable data, the runway lengths required were rediculously long for that aircraft, hence it was more practical to go with the Dash 8 and that is just what they did.

Flying below Vmca on takeoff and approach also had transport a little worried at that time (STOL work). Too bad really, had the opportunity to see some VERY short strips and some long, steep vallies throughout BC, which the BUFF handled with ease.

Now flogging around the globe in an A345 isn't quite the same as 500' above and 1/2 mile out from the mountain side, but then again the gals serving our coffee are a whole nicer to look at than a SARTECH

Dooner:ok: