Moremi Air van down

[V1... Ooops]

This post is a bit of a non-sequitur, because I'm replying to comments made about two months ago, way back on page 4 of the discussion. I'm replying out of the context of this discussion, by that I mean with no reference or prejudice to the unfortunate accident in Botswana.

Originally Posted by Foxcotte

And while I'm on a roll, I'd like to consider what would actually make a bush plane seeing as there is some strong opinions about it on this thread... Let's see

Something rugged
Dependable
Simple to fly
Economic to buy, operate and run
Under the ATP bracket for pilot/insurance costs
Widespread/well known so pilots aren't an issue to get
Proven/established manufacturer with parts/spares/training backup
Large enough to take a group of say one or two tour buses full,
Lots of luggage compartments for ease of storage
Capable of easily being converted from cargo to passenger configuration
Tough, fixed gear for rough runways, and to avoid rebuild costs on gear-up landings
Large tyres for soft surfaces - easy wheel/tyre change capability for punctures
Tricycle gear to eliminate ground loops/inept tail wheel pilots/inadvertant runway departures
IFR equipped with optional aircon/icing/floats/skis/glass cockpit capability
High wing to avoid small trees/shrubs/fence posts etc on narrow runways
18" or more prop clearance to get over uncut/long grass
Landing/take off in approximately 750-800m
Range to do at least 1000nm or 7+ hours
Airstair door for disabled/elderly/immobile passengers
Roomy cabin with good visiblity for sightseeing
Slow approach/lift off speeds
Currently in production
Non-pressurised for economic/pratical/weight reasons
Capable of long cruises, or very short hops

I think that's pretty much all of my wish list. I wonder how many planes can fit the bill.....??

The Series 400 Twin Otter meets every single one of the requirements you have listed, with the exception of range to do 1,000 miles. The basic aircraft will do 600 miles, or 750 miles if fitted with optional wing tanks.

Originally Posted by Foxcotte

Yeah... I'd thought of a twin otter but its only just resurrected from the ashes, with what is in effect a new company. Two engines make it quite a bit more expensive than its nearest rival with overhaul costs etc, and neither can they produce them as fast as their competitor. And this African idea of making them two crew ops also adds to the basic running costs, training costs, and hassles with getting pilots capable of flying them. And the rudder tiller makes it a little non-standard compared with the basic set up of aircraft controls.

So all in all it still just doesn't stack up to the other contender. Bush plane or not.

Viking Air, the manufacturer, has been in business for nearly 40 years, and has been manufacturing parts for de Havilland aircraft - under contract to de Havilland - for at least 20 years. It is by no means a new company. As of today 10 new Series 400 Twin Otters are flying.

Naturally a twin-engine aircraft will be more expensive to purchase and operate than a smaller single engine aircraft. However, a twin engine aircraft - in particular, a twin that has been recently certified in the 'Part 23 commuter' category, with the more stringent regulations applicable to that 10 to 19 seat category - offers considerable advantages and benefits over a single engine aircraft that has only been certified for Part 23, 9 passenger or less operations.

For sake of full disclosure: I work for Viking Air.