Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
CARIBOU TO BE RETIRED IN 2009: "The RAAF will retire its fleet of 14 DHC-4 Caribou tactical transports next year following the discovery of fatigue cracking and corrosion on the fleet's airframes and various systems.
Although the RAAF planned to operate the fleet through until 2012, the decision to bring the retirement date forward comes after a Caribou suffered severe damage to its left wing and upper fuselage after was what was previously reported as a ‘hard landing' in Papua New Guinea last month. The cause of the damage has since been attributed to a structural failure caused by severe fatigue.
Although nothing has been officially announced, sources say the Caribou's transport capability in regions such as PNG and East Timor will be temporarily covered by Army King Airs until a permanent replacement can be provided through the delayed Air 8000 Phase 2 project. "
Last edited by wessex19 : 1st October 2008 at 02:02.
THREE COMPANIES SHORT-LISTED FOR CARIBOU REPLACEMENT
The Minister for Defence, Mr McLachlan, announced today that three companies had been short-listed as potential suppliers for the Australian Defence Force's new Light Transport Aircraft."
I've never appreciated just how massive a vertical stabiliser these things have
Anyone who has sat at the holding point watching what happens to the 'bou's 'massive vertical stabiliser' with brakes set and METO power applied just before it starts a STOL takeoff comes away with great respect for the durability -and malleability - of aviation grade aluminium. With full power applied, the whole tail section of the 'bou takes on a mind of it own, twisting and turning every which way, a bit like a snake that's been pinned to the floor on a shovel blade. (And that's not as big an exaggeration as some might suspect - the amount of flexing and wobbling is little short of alarming!!)
Australian Aviation may be jumping the gun here. As I understand it, the Bou's early retirement is a suggestion that CAF is putting to Government - it is not a done deal.
I wouldn't be putting money on evidence of either corrosion or fatigue contributing to the failures reported on the Efogi Bou either. The difference between a landing and a crash at that strip is miniscule and a sure fire cure for hicups.
The parts from the Bou in Efogi havent even been analysed yet. Reason for the retirment is because of cost benefit of maintaining the fleet. Hundreds of man hours to get a frame or 2 online.
Why is it that the suggestion that 38 Sqn will acquire a brace of used King Airs as the Caribou replacement (and operate them for many years to come) sound very plausible to me?
If I was a betting man, that would be the option I'd be putting my money on - and I wish I could be half as certain of winning the lottery.
Makes you wonder? If the incident caused a caribou to end up like that, even with those big oleo's and big tyres with a frame designed to conduct rough field landings what would it have done to a C27J or CN235?
The RAAF Caribou also have R-2000s, of 1,450 HP, although which exact mark(s) seems unclear. The -7M seems, however, to have been standard from the factory.
Linear Mode
