Let410/420 vs Twin Otter

[Tango24]

Looking for any info on pros and cons of Let 410 and Twin Otters. Anybody who has flown/operated either or preferably both and has an opinion would be greatly appreciated. Specifically looking for short, soft field performance, reliability and operating cost comparisons.

Also opinions on Let 410 and 420 differences.

Thanks

Thanks

[Shrike200]

This topic has actually come up before in a fair amount of detail in this forum - some searching of the archives should yield something useful.

[MungoP]

If you put the two of them to the test you'd find that the twotter is the better tool.. no doubt , BUT.. very much more expensive.. becoming few and far between in the right condition... watch out there are some dogs out there. What you need to ask yourself is just how important is that marginally improved short field performance to your operation... just how short and uncomfortable are the strips you'll be operating into.. if only the twotter can do it with the load demanded then there's no decision to make , but if the Let can do it effectively then why spend the extra money ... a lot of extra money .

[Goffel]

T24.
I fly both the Twotter and the LET.......the LET, to me, wins hands down.

For comfort, (both pax, plus pilots), it is definitely much more comfortable than the Twotter.

Performance, both the same...only time to test the two is if you are going in to really marginal strips with pax, and normally most people are not doing that...but then again, I have found them to be much of a muchness anyway.

From what I gather, the LET is cheaper to run and to buy.

I am sure there are going to be guys that differ from me, but I still say the LET.

Goffel..(by the sea, and my boss knows).

[Solid Rust Twotter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8wmZ6hhpg8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS0-5WVIHMM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pk2yzDzWP0&feature=related


I believe Viking has begun assembling the new -400 series with the PT6A-34 engines.

[Tango24]

Thanks for the input so far. I have been looking through old posts and it appears to be that those who fly the Let say its the best and those who fly the Otter swear it can't be beaten. Reading between the lines I have to say that performance wise they are much of a muchness and simply because of the price I am swaying towards the Let. I can get a factory reconditioned Let with zero time on all components,or even a new one for less than a 10-15thousand hour Twotter.

Now, apologies for more questions, but I currently fly C208s. Would it be safe to assume that if a Caravan can get in and out of an airstrip with pilot plus 13, could a Let do the same with 19 pax?

To be more specific, I am looking for a commuter aircraft that can carry more than a C208 and operate off 800-1000m soft dirt airstrips in 40+C. Am I asking too much perhaps?

[V1... Ooops]

I believe Viking has begun assembling the new -400 series with the PT6A-34 engines.

That is correct. The first Series 400 - the pre-production prototype - is almost fully complete and will be removed from the fuselage jig before Christmas. The wings have already been completed. The goal is to fly it in April or May of 2007. Delivery of the next aircraft, which will be the first production Series 400 (serial number 845) is scheduled for the first quarter of 2009.

The Series 400 will be an evolution of the 300. No substantial changes are planned (other than avionics), but there will be a number of small incremental changes that will improve reliability, reduce maintenance cost, and reduce aircraft weight. Expect the basic empty weight of a Series 400 fully kitted out for commercial IFR (TCAS I, TAWS A, CVR/FDR, weather radar, satphone, Mode S EHS, and dual everything) to be well under 7,000 lbs.

[Ejector]

Maybe the twotter cost so much is due to supply and demand. Big demand for a machine that can do alot.

[Woof etc]

Flew a couple of thousand hrs on the Let (ZS reg) and I found it to be a very Robust and reliable aircraft. Unfortunately there are a number of operators in Africa who buy old former soviet union UVPs with timex components at a snip and then operate them illegally until they break, giving the aircraft an undeserved bad name.

re. loads - you will have to check the graphs. Depends. 40 degree plus, 19 pax, soft field, 1000 m - you will be borderline and probably illegal with full mains - it depends on the amount of clearway, stopway etc. How much baggage? How much more than 40? How soft? Slope etc etc. will make a big difference. Remember the Let is a part 121 aircraft and has to meet the min climb gradient and accelerate stop / go requirements to be legal, the Twin Otter does not. Typically the aircraft weigh between 4000 and 4300 kgs depending on equipment. MTOW is 6600 and full mains give 1000 kg of fuel.

The undercarriage is moereva tough on the Let - it soaks up bad landings and if you manage to break it you deserve some sort of award! Big takkies are good for unprepared surfaces.

The Twin Otter is a better STOL performer due to that big fat draggy Clark Y wing and lower stall speed. You can land the Let in a couple of hundred meters with the correct technique, helped by a combination of big double slotted fowler flaps, ground spoilers, antiskid and fat tekkies. However, you probably want to land in a field you can take off from again (personal preference of course).

Any aircraft is a compromise - the Twin Otter sacrifices comfort and cruise speed for better STOL performance. If runway length is not limiting then I would go for the LET simply for the increased comfort and cruise speed and lower operating costs. Having spoken to a number of pax who have flown in both, they stated a definite preference to flying in the LET from a comfort point of view. Having never flown in a Twin Otter, I can't comment.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Howdy Mike. Need any test pilots for the new Twotters, mate?:ok:

Looking forward to seeing them around.

[Turbolet410]

Hi

I have got over 4000 hours on a LET 410 I think it has more future than the Twin Otter.
Performance is the same I have been told.
Regards,

[Turbolet410]

I think you are asking to much

[V1... Ooops]

I'm really not that familiar with the LET. I saw a particularly good looking one on the ramp in Abache a few weeks ago (ZS registered, ICRC livery). The cabin and avionics fitment were certainly up to Western standards.

I think weight is going to be the big issue here. If, as Woof mentioned, "the aircraft weigh between 4000 and 4300 kgs depending on equipment. MTOW is 6600 ..." that gives a 2,450 kg useful load. A Series 400 Twin Otter will weigh about 3,100 kg with a MTOW of 5,670, thus providing pretty much the same useful load but with a significantly lower all up weight. I am sure that there are some single engine performance issues that need to be considered when working in hot environments with short runways (what we're all up against in humanitarian aviation), and I kind of suspect that the Twin Otter will have the safety advantage there due to its lighter weight. On the other hand, if runway length and surface condition is such that you don't have to worry about what happens if you lose an engine at rotation, then the LET does have a bit of a cabin size advantage.

Horses for courses, I think. However, to be honest with all of you, I also have to disclose an obvious conflict of interest here - I'm the Engineering Test Pilot and Manager of Flight Safety for Viking, who manufacture the DHC-6 Series 400. :)

[mrwebs]

To be more specific, I am looking for a commuter aircraft that can carry more than a C208 and operate off 800-1000m soft dirt airstrips in 40+C. Am I asking too much perhaps?Hi, i fly twotters out of the tropics, our hottest days are max 34 degrees C, and the strips are asphalt and grass
the mtow we use is 12500lbs with a mlw of 12300lbs

according to my graphs;
t/o- a sea level field at 40 deg C and mtow requires 730 meters with normal takeoff config in nil wind

ldg- a sea level field at 40 deg C and mlw requires about 700 meters, thats brakes only without beta or reverse, and at 20 flap setting in nil wind.

i use 400m with mlw, 30flap and beta in 34deg C.

cant vouch for the LET, hope this helps.

[kijety]

I have flown left seat both the let410 and the twotter.. few thousand hours..
YOU CANNOT COMPARE a twotter to that other one.. the let is a flying landrover. it could probably do a good job in a safari rally.. on a hot and high situation and full board it will take you 25 minutes to get from 5000ft to FL115... from sealevel to FL105 you will level out when 45 miles out.
TWINN OTTER perfomance is double that of a let410...
choose wisely..

[Soap Box Cowboy]

Search for this thread in African avaition, it's one I started ages ago with the same questions. "Let410 V. Dhc-6 "

There is a lot of usefull info on it for you though the thread has been closed now. :ok:

[V1... Ooops]

TWIN OTTER performance is double that of a let 410...

And it will improve with the new 400 Series, which are being fitted with PT6A-34 engines (or, optionally, -35). The flat rating will remain the same at 620 HP (50 lbs torque), but full horsepower will now be available during climb all the way up to ISA +31°, which is a significant increase over the ISA +6° full horsepower flat rating limitation for climb power on the legacy Series 300 Twin Otters.

The final selection of the avionics suite for the new Series 400 will be announced before the end of the year. I think everyone will be quite pleased with it. It will be a fully integrated system, not a federated system.

[chuks]

All I know about the Let I got from just watching Air Express doing engine-out training at DAUH on hot days (Hassi Messaoud, Algeria and by hot we mean 50° C). The only reason the Let climbs, seemingly, is that the Earth is a sphere! Give me a Twotter any day.

That said, the Let is a bit faster and it has air-conditioning. The Twotter designers did not pay much attention to comfort issues so that it is a pig in that regard, but I will take climb performance over comfort and speed any day.

[maxpwr]

Isnt there a max temp. for the Twotter to be operated in STOL config ? AFM ?

On the L410 you have max contingency power ( 10 Min ) in case of engine failiure , same as max Take off on Twotter. Obviously you dont use max contingency for training purposes.

Aircraft Industries has new L410 in 2008 fitted with UNIVERSAL EFIS and is working on PT6A-42 powered version.

[V1... Ooops]

Isn't there a max temp. for the Twotter to be operated in STOL config ? AFM ?

There are no airframe (OAT) operating temperature limitations published in the Twin Otter AFM - at the time the aircraft was certified, the certification requirements did not include temperature limitations.

Having said that, be aware that available engine takeoff power in a standard Twin Otter (an aircraft equipped with -27 engines) will begin to decline at ISA + 17°, which is the point where the crossover from the flat rating limit to the thermodynamic limit takes place. For climb and cruise power, the crossover is ISA +6°.

You mentioned "STOL config". I am going to guess that you mean 20° flap takeoffs. Be aware that you need a letter of permission from your regulatory authority (state of registration) before you can do that - flaps 10° is the only approved takeoff configuration in the AFM. If you are making takeoffs at flaps 20°, you might want to check and see if you are actually setting full takeoff power (as determined from the takeoff power graph, figure 4-3 in the AFM) for your maximum performance takeoffs. If you are making flaps 20° takeoffs with reduced power (45 lbs takeoff torque), there is an awful contradiction there - you might find that you would get better overall performance (a faster, shorter takeoff) and significant safety benefits if you tried a full power takeoff with flaps 10° instead.

[V1... Ooops]

The Twotter designers did not pay much attention to comfort issues so that it is a pig in that regard...

Truth be known, when the DHC-6 was first designed, it was intended for the Canadian domestic market - particularly the Canadian Arctic - so great attention was paid to ensuring that the heater was very robust. No-one at DH ever anticipated that the DHC-6 would have such worldwide sales success, thus no-one ever thought about cooling the cabin as opposed to heating the cabin.

I work for the company that is building the Series 400 Twin Otter - I am responsible for flight compartment design and specifications, including avionics and HVAC. I can tell you "for sure" that the Series 400 will have several large fresh air vents (gaspers) right on the instrument panel to provide fresh air to the pilots, in the same manner as a Dash 8 has. We are also investigating replacing the existing heater assembly with an air cycle machine that would provide either heated or cooled air as required, but this investigation is still under way and no final decision has been made.

I've done time in DAUH myself, so I know what the problems are in hot environments.

[chuks]

I was off pretending to work for a while and forgot to check the comments here.

As to comfort in the Twotter, it heats up just fine but when it's hot outside, it's even hotter inside and the fun-loving Hassi ATC will stick you with ten minutes at the holding point on a hot afternoon. That sure does give the sweat glands a good work-out!

The maximum certificated temperature is +50° C. The charts all stop there. This might be why you will never hear a temperature higher than 50° when you ask for the Met report at DAUH.

Some of the guys who raced Porsches had a saying, "You cannot make a race horse out of a pig, but if you spend enough money you can have a very fast pig!" Now we are to get a glass cockpit in a Twin Otter? Whatever next? Flush rivets?

Do not get me wrong: I love my Twin Otter. But that's sort of like saying, "For a fat girl you don't sweat much." Its virtues are sometimes subtle and well-hidden, particularly on a very hot afternoon.

I had a really good laugh over one of the Self-Loading Freight telling me in all seriousness that there was something wrong with the (non-existent) air-conditioning, that the air coming out of the Wemacs was not very cool at all. I guess he missed noticing that Captain Speaking looked as if he had been under the shower fully dressed, there.

I understand that our new one has been specced with -27s instead of -34s. What is the idea of offering that option? Here I had been looking forward to some flat-rating but noooo!

[V1... Ooops]

The maximum certificated temperature is +50° C. The charts all stop there.
Oh really? Geez, I just finished re-writing the limitations section of the DHC-6 300 AFM last week, now I am going to have to go back and change it... :)

Performance charts don't give figures for higher than 52° C at sea level. However, this is not a limitation. When the DHC-6 300 was certified, no requirement existed to publish operating temperature limitations (upper or lower), therefore, none were ever published.
Having said that, it's probably not a bad idea to wait until things cool down sufficiently that you can find where to begin your performance calculation on the graph...

As for cooling, I'm currently looking into the possibility of replacing the existing bleed-air fired furnace in the Series 300 with an air cycle machine in the Series 400. That would provide some relief in hot temperatures, although it's unlikely to cool the aircraft interior down by 30° C. It has already been decided that the new Series 400 Twin Otters will have four gasper type vents on the instrument panel (same as a Dash 8) to improve flight compartment comfort.

The fully integrated glass cockpit is the only sensible way to equip an aircraft that is being manufactured in 2008 and beyond. It would be nuts to install a federated avionics suite.

[chuks]

That is because in my case the JAR regulators say that it is "game over" at +50° C for the DHC-6-300. If the performance data only goes to that temperature then there is no way that I can calculate, as required, the performance beyond that temperature. No extrapolation allowed, it is as if one sails off the edge of the map, ker-plunk!

I sure do not want to start an argument with the man doing the certification for the aircraft! Here I just started again in January after an hiatus of about ten years, never really expecting to deal with the balky beast again. Several times, from FlightSafety and from Training Captains I have recently been told that "the DHC-6-300 is limited to +50° C." Talk to them about this, please.

I guess I should have made it clear that it's a regulatory limit, simply because I do not have any data to work with beyond that temperature. You re-write the book for my airplane, I shall be more than pleased to fly it at higher temperatures. In fact, I might just have done that already, given that curious reluctance on the part of the Hassi Met Service to say any number higher than 50°. Air Cous-cous might have trouble with that one, I guess.

Come to that, in the USA we were legally limited to 20° flap with passengers on board. Some crew managed to stoof in on a go-around with full flaps by forgetting not to raise the nose beyond the horizon. The FAA, in its wisdom, then told the rest of us to stick with 20° flap, rather than telling us to sit up and pay attention. The airspeed unwinding might have given them a clue....

In my last incarnation I was flying an airplane with a glass cockpit. (And it was limited to 50° C. and/or ISA + 35°! You weren't even allowed to start the engines above that. I guess the FADEC would have a fit.) To begin with we expected two things: trouble adapting to the glass cockpit after the rather rustic Twin Otter panel and trouble keeping the glass cockpit alive in West Africa.

We did, indeed, have trouble adapting to the glass cockpit, at least to begin with. There is just so much more information being presented, and in such a different way. You have to learn much different skills but it's perfectly do-able. That said, we were mostly dinosaurs; I suppose the young pilots of today, with all their computer skills, should find this much easier.

On the other hand, I think we had one Display Unit fail on a total of five aircraft. Otherwise, nothing aside from a few minor software bugs. After that initial "burn-in" period solid-state equipment is much, much more reliable. The Collins FD-109 was a neat piece of kit, as were the radios, but that was in their day, which passed around 1980.

[alexmcfire]

Twotter can be fitted with floats, LET410 can´t?
Otherwise I say that both are rugged airplanes.

[chuks]

Now there is something you don't see a lot of: Twotters on floats in Algeria. If I had a choice, though, I would want wheels that retract, such as the Let has.

The other day I just gave up gracefully and let Let 420 Zulu Sierra Wotsit be Number One, since he had a whole ten or fifteen knots extra in hand. If I want to be the Alpha Male I have to find a Porter to out-run. Even a Caravan is speedier than a Twotter!

On the other hand, Let drivers probably envy us our genuine Pratt & Whitney engines, where they must make do with cheap copies from some man named Walter.

Another thing: the Twotter has rather small windows but if you put the seat up at least you can see out. The only time I sat in a Let I felt as if I were peering through a letter slot! What, they had a glass shortage in Bohemia when it was designed?

It does have the Comecon air of robustness about it, yes. No finite-element CAD design for that one, no. Built like a DC-3, I imagine. When it pulls away from a parking position does it leave dents in the Tarmac behind?

Another idle question: Who put the Let's main-wheel brakes on the wrong end of the axles? Had the designers been nipping at the de-icing fluid again, there?

[Propstop]

V1-Ooops
I remember the avionic problems we had in the heat and humidity in Burma, and the autopilot/ flight director problems in the third one which had all of that gear.
I hope the new -400 system will be able to cope with that type of humidity, as all we seemed to do in that climate was remove the box, put it in a less humid environment for a while and then it would work again. Even the new radars we fitted there were slowly dying in that humidity and temps. If that problem can be overcome with the new Twotter it will be a winner.

[TowerDog]

I got 2000 hours in Twotters, both wheels and floats.

Every one I flew had Air Condition and a resulting cool cabin.
Surely it was an "aftermarket" thing, but even so, plenty comfortable at least for the pax. (The A/C unit was at the aft bulkhead in the cabin and the cockpit got a whiff of cold air occasionally)

As for taking off with more than F-20...Try full flaps, the thing with take off like a helicopter, nose down and climb straight up..:eek:

[chuks]

I had a colleague show me how short it would land if you pulled it into reverse just before the flare, but I would put that sort of thing in the "Kids! Don't try this at home!" category. Why would you want to take off with full flaps? And, what happens if you lose one engine right at rotation, as Sod's Law says you shall? You would be so far below Vmc and so far behind the power curve on one engine that it would make a pretty ugly picture.

I flew a few Twotters that used to have air-conditioning before the bean-counters figured out how much more payload we could haul with it taken out. That was, for them, a no-brainer. We still had the duct-work but that was all!

Here, let us hope this hoped-for ACM is welded irremovably in place. Where is the bleed air coming from to run it on a hot day when the engines are maxed out, though? I think we shall need new SOPs for that, with the ACM set to OFF for take-off. That would be liveable, I guess.

[TowerDog]

Why would you want to take off with full flaps? And, what happens if you lose one engine right at rotation, as Sod's Law says you shall? You would be so far below Vmc and so far behind the power curve on one engine that it would make a pretty ugly picture.


No doubt you would be way below VMC speed when taking off with full flaps.
In that case you are a single engine airplane, loose one, chop the other one and land straight ahead, or roll inverted.

A collegue who shall not be named attempted a full flaps T/O on the Twin Otter, but nobody told him to hold full back elevator. The airplane went up on the nosewheel, turned abrubtly left and crashed into the glide-slope shack at San Juan Airport, Puerto Rico. A bit over 20 years ago it was. We both flew for Eastern Metro Express back then.

So, yeah don't try that at home, but done right with an empty airplane and with a bit of luck, Sod's and Murphy's law notwhitstanding, it makes for a spectacular short field take-off.

[sky waiter]

No us let drivers do not envy youre genuine P & W engines our so called Cheap walters do just fine thank you- and we have ILEU's so we dont have to worrry about starting our engines and cooking them, much simpler and easier, i just love passing buy and waving as you give up gracefully,

Hey we have to beat someone out here!! :E:E

[chuks]

Paris? No, wrong movie! (I just watched "Casablanca" with a German sound track. Try "Of all the cheap gin joints in the world, why did she have to walk into mine?" in German some time. Faaaascinating!)

Porters, not Paris! Hah! I was talking to one of our Porter pilots when I asked him what sort of speed it made. "110" was the answer, when my next question was "Kilometers per hour?" Bwahahahahah!

The Twotter was designed to be faster than a speeding pick-up truck and that it manages very nicely.

The last airplane I was flying, I felt very frustrated when I had to slow down to 160-170 knots, about Vmax for the Twotter. So, you see, it is all relative.

My co-pilot was a bit puzzled the other day when I worked things out with a Let crew to have them be Number One and us Number Two. I explained that they were a little faster, we were blind in the rear hemisphere and there was no way a Twotter would be running into a Let by catching it from behind. The other way around, well, who knows?

[galaxy flyer]

V1.....Oops:

I work for the successor company to DHC (the bizjet bunch) and many of us would like to hear how the -400 is going. PM at your convenience.

GF

[V1... Ooops]

Wow, lot's of post-Christmas discussion to catch up on. Where to begin?
To begin with we expected two things: trouble adapting to the glass cockpit after the rather rustic Twin Otter panel and trouble keeping the glass cockpit alive in West Africa.

Your concerns are reasonable. It is interesting to note that the very first company to ever fit glass instruments (Collins AI and HSI) to a Twin Otter was Trigana, way back in the mid 1980s. The expat in charge of maintenance at the time did this because he was fed up with the failure rate of the electro-mechanical displays in the rather harsh Indonesian environment. As for trouble adapting to a glass cockpit - that's a legitimate concern, but keep in mind that there are huge differences between contemporary (2008) fully integrated glass cockpit human factors and the human factor problems that came with the first iterations back in the 80s and 90s. It's not unlike comparing DOS to the latest version of Apple or Microsoft's GUI operating systems. The vendor we have chosen for the DHC-6 Series 400 has, we think, the very best human factors available. As soon as the contract can be made public, I'll tell you more. In the meantime, trust me, you will not be disappointed.

Best reason of all for a fully integrated, 2008 version avionics suite: Full IFR with TAWS, TCAS, Wx radar, the works yields a BEW less than 7,000 lbs.

I remember the avionic problems we had in the heat and humidity in Burma, and the autopilot/ flight director problems in the third one which had all of that gear.
I hope the new -400 system will be able to cope with that type of humidity...

I remember that too, I did a year in Burma back in '91. Performance in high humidity and in saline environments is a top priority for us, because many of our Series 400 customers are operating in exactly this type of environment. If it makes you feel any better, our office (the Viking Air office) is located on a peninsula on Vancouver Island and we are less than 500 meters from the Pacific Ocean on both sides of the building! All of our company aircraft are operated in saltwater on amphib floats, and our first Series 400 technical demonstrator (which is just coming out of the jig this week) will be also be equipped with amphib floats. As for heat - the upper temperature limit for the avionics hardware is +70°. The upper operational limit will need to be established during flight test, however I have every reason to believe it will be > +50°. The best food for thought I can give you is this: When was the last time your (contemporary) mobile phone or laptop computer packed it in due to heat or humidity?

Here, let us hope this hoped-for ACM is welded irremovably in place. Where is the bleed air coming from to run it on a hot day when the engines are maxed out, though?

If we do elect to go with an air cycle machine - and I need to stress that we are just looking at it right now, no decision has been made, it's a 50-50 probability - it will be a permanent installation, because it will supply both heat and cooling. Bleed air supply won't be a concern, because the standard engine fitment for the Series 400 Twin Otter will be a -34, not a -27. For operators who work in really hot environments, a -35 will be available as a factory installed option. Same 620 HP flat rating on all of them, so you would need to be on the surface of the sun before you hit the thermodynamic limit on takeoff with a -35. Having said all that, if there is a need to limit bleed air extraction on takeoff (or for single engine operations), I suppose it would be easy enough to write the software so that the ACM gets cut off whenever (for example) props are at 96% and the thermodynamic rating of the engine is reached. The cutoff and subsequent re-establishment of conditioned air would then be automatic. This has already been done on similar aircraft.

I work for the successor company to DHC (the bizjet bunch) and many of us would like to hear how the -400 is going.

It's going great, the technical demonstrator should be completed in April of 2007, and the first new aircraft will come off the line at the end of 2008. There is more information about the new aircraft at the Viking website: http://www.vikingair.com/content2.aspx?id=276

[porcinet]

it will be released in 2011.

a good concurrent for the old twin otter.

:ok:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_BQX0dcueIsA/RuwJpi036jI/AAAAAAAAAHE/UtZacMGoSYI/s1600-h/al+(34b1a).jpg (http://bp3.blogger.com/_BQX0dcueIsA/RuwJpi036jI/AAAAAAAAAHE/UtZacMGoSYI/s1600-h/al+%2834b1a%29.jpg)

[DHC6to8]

Hi Guys... in my experience.. the Hog likes full flaps for T/O and full flaps for landing... mind you I never used full flaps for every take off, only in heavy swells, and really short strips that I would not want to be on again... With the column all the way back, the nose slightly below the horizon, you turned her into a helicopter. I have to admit it, flew 4000+ hours on the Hog, in 5 different continents, between +55 celcius to -85 celcius static air temp, floats, amphibs, wheels (tundra and regular), wheel/ski combis, and straight boards, and I never even read the manual...rather I learned how to do an engine change, prop change, tyre change, throttle rigging, and the easy engine washes with the Engineers. Where I come from some would say that was part of the life of a Hog driver.... had some of the best flying of my career on that big fat little bitch... and I don' regret a moment of it...or the company I kept... on the other hand all the guys who read the manuals, and pussy footed around with it half afraid of her never really learned what the golden rule of the Hog is: you don't just fly it.... you "wear" it....
I had to land on a beach once in a very remote island off the east coast of Africa once.... and the British trained check Capt that was with me almost loaded his shorts when he saw me select full flap for landing.... the down wind on the approach was the final... when we got back to the main base and the 10000ft runway he relaxed a bit and I went and did another full flap landing just to hammer the point home...When Iasked him what flap setting he would have rather have seen he said 20 degrees with full reverse after landing... WTF over?
All in the course of a good laugh or two, at the end of the day we are all on the same team!
6to8