First Flight - New Production Series 400 Twin Otter

[V1... Ooops]

Hello All:

I've been kind of busy at work lately (an understatement if there ever was one) and forgot to post a picture of the first flight of the first new production Twin Otter to come off the assembly line. This is serial number 845, which will be delivered to Zimex Aviation.

The first flight took place at Calgary, Alberta (the location of the final assembly plant) on March 10th. This aircraft has now completed production flight test and has gone to the paint shop.

The white colour components visible on the aircraft are parts that are made using composite construction (rather than aluminum). Composite construction was chosen for these non-structural parts because it gives a simpler, lighter assembly. All of these parts are the same 'size' as Series 300 parts, and could be used as spares on a Series 300 aircraft in the future if the need arises.

Final testing of the integrated avionics suite is taking place now. I think everyone will be very happy with the new avionics, which are much lighter than the legacy federated system. Note also that all of the switches and controls for aircraft systems are now on the instrument panel. The only switch that remains on the roof (aft of the power levers) is a single switch to control the flight compartment dome light.

I've posted some photos below.

Michael

First Flight - SN 845 (March 2010)
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/C-FMJO1.jpg

Flight Compartment - Series 400
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/Series400-FlightCompartment.jpg

Primary Flight Display (note altitude!)
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/PrimaryFlightDisplay.jpg

Upper Multifunction Display (situational awareness display)
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/UpperMultifunctionDisplay.jpg

Lower Multifunction Display (systems display)
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/LowerMultifunctionDisplay.jpg

[172driver]

A brand new Twotter :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

Great. May she be met with much success - of which I'm certain!

[Sir Osis of the river]

Thanks for the update. It is great to see the "Twotter" back in production.

The only thing I would like to know is how are the new avionics, EFIS, gonna hold up to the rigours of bush flying. (Dust, heat, vibration from dirt runways, etc??)

Maybe one of my mates at Zimex will take me for a ride some day:ok:

Sir O

[V1... Ooops]

...The only thing I would like to know is how are the new avionics, EFIS, gonna hold up to the rigours of bush flying...

Fer' goodness sakes - does your cell phone hold up to the rigors of bush flying? Does your laptop computer hold up to the rigors of bush flying? Does your iPod hold up to the rigors of bush flying? :E

Of course the stuff will hold up. In fact, it will hold up a heck of a lot better than legacy instruments because there are no moving parts. Honeywell provides a three year warranty on everything, and offers longer warranty extensions if a customer would prefer a longer warranty.

The same company that makes the display screens for the Twin Otter also makes the display screens used in the US Army Abhrams battle tank. We thank the US Army for doing our durability testing for us during the last 7 years that they have been in Iraq. :}

Michael

[PLovett]

V1

Fantastic to see the Twotter back in the air. Good fortune and I hope you sell heaps of 'em.

[Sir Osis of the river]

V1,

"Fer goodness sakes, Back in the day when I was bush flying, there were no cellphones, laptops etc":E

Seriously, the only "real" electronics I had was a CD player, which did not like the dust in Loki.

Anyway I am impressed that the stuff is guaranteed for three years and hopefully it will stand the test of time. It sure will be a lot better than the legacy instrumentation and I am mildly jealous that we never had kit like that. :ok:

Are there any major performance increases with the new airframe, or are all the numbers the same.

Onward and upward,

Sir O

[V1... Ooops]

Hi again Sir O:

My CD player didn't like the dust in Huambo either - but that was back in the 1980s. Problem with those CD players is that they had moving parts, which is why they have been made extinct by iPods...

Anyway, there is no "official" performance increase, because we are using all of the same performance charts that the Series 300 aircraft uses. This is so that operators don't have to make a distinction between the 300 and the 400 when they have mixed fleets.

Unofficially - well, that's another story. You can get full 50 PSI take-off torque all the way up to ISA +27°, which provides really zippy performance. There is no need whatsoever to use reduced power on takeoffs (in fact, it is prohibited), because the normal redline for the -34 engine is 61 PSI torque, and the flat rating limit remains at 50 PSI. So, when you are making a 50 PSI torque takeoff at ISA, you're not only asking the engine for about 78% of what it was designed to deliver.

The new aircraft also flies faster than the older planes, most probably because we are now building them to 1/1000 of an inch tolerance with laser measurement every step of the way (rather than the 1/10th of an inch that DH was lucky to get in the 60s and 70s). It is very easy to hit the airspeed indicator redline in level cruise - in fact, if you set maximum cruise power, you WILL hit the redline every time. Another possible reason why the new aircraft are faster could be because all the older ones I ever flew had probably been rolled up into a ball and then rebuilt once or twice in their lives... :E The new ones are all straight and true.

Other than going faster, and letting you command the full 620 HP for takeoff under just about every environmental circumstance imaginable - it's pretty much the same thing. We didn't change anything that would affect flight characteristics.

Michael

[seper]

is the MTOW still 12.5?

[Spadhampton]

...for sucking out cockpit flys through the "cracked open" sliding window? ...and did they think to make a place for the two box lunches and thermos bottle?

Still though, its quite a sight to see.

[DHC6to8]

Michael, thanks for the good news! I have many fond memories of the Otter, I absolutely loved flying that bird, floats, wheels skis, or ski-combo... I just hope that Viking has left the little coffe cup holder that swings out underneath the instrument panel.... can the 400 also go on floats? Are all the mountings still present?
I want to fly this bird...
6to8

[TowerDog]

Aye, that is funny, Twotter with a glass cockpit..:)

Flew 'em on floats and on wheels..One of my all time favorite aircraft.

[Spadhampton]

Four laptops and an eight day clock. Can you go online and play games while in route? Heck there is so much room on the panel now you could put in a small microwave oven.

[Shrike200]

The legend continues......awesome.

[Spadhampton]

The propeller Ice shield behind the cockpit door is gone!

[V1... Ooops]

...The propeller Ice shield behind the cockpit door is gone!

That particular aircraft (SN 845) was not ordered with de-icing equipment - hence, no ice shields.

If a customer orders an aircraft with equipment for FIKI (flight in known icing) installed, the ice shields come as part of that package.

Below is a photo of our company technical demonstrator, which has the complete FIKI package installed. The ice shields are still there... :)

Note that this picture was taken about a year ago on the ramp outside our hangar - the maintenance technicians had just removed the cuff fairing from where the wing root meets the fuselage - no, we did not forget to install it... :eek:

Michael

The Series 400 Technical Demonstrator (with ice shields)
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/Michael.jpg

[V1... Ooops]

...Four laptops and an eight day clock.

Hey - at least we include a clock (quartz, by the way, not mechanical). If you buy a Falcon 7X, it looks very similar, but you don't get a clock. :)

Michael

http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/Falcon7XFlightDeck.jpg

[Sir Osis of the river]

Only use for the ice shields that I ever saw was to stop shrapnel from an anti-personal mine penetrating the fuselage:} Worked pretty well too.

[Spadhampton]

You don't have to apologize for anything. The 400 is beautiful. You need the wing hard point mod and cargo bay camera MOD for atmospheric research, and, uh....ahem....other purposes since the airplane is renowned as SAM survivable. You’ve secured a place in the history books by bringing this incredibly reliable and versatile airplane back to life.

[9-er]

Great to see this wonderful aircraft back in production. The upgrades look fantastic too. Who could've imagined the Twotter so remarkably reborn 10 years ago? Hope I get a chance to try one out one day!

Definitely one of my all time favourite airplanes.

[V1... Ooops]

...since the airplane is renowned as SAM survivable.

Uh, yeah, I am aware of that little incident. Firsthand knowledge, you might say. :\

Michael

[V1... Ooops]

...can the 400 also go on floats? Are all the mountings still present?

For sure - in fact, we made the very first flight of our technical demonstrator aircraft (the proof of concept build of the Series 400) on amphibious floats.

We're having a hard time convincing Honeywell that they should offer sonar depth indication and an optional fishfinder on the lower multifunction display when the aircraft is mounted on floats... :ok: ...they are not sure if we are serious or if we are kidding them (we're not sure either).

Series 400 Technical Demonstrator, Fall 2008
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/Twin_Otter_2.jpg

[Spadhampton]

Are you selling these new Twin Otters for Viking or picking one up for Zimex?

[V1... Ooops]

Neither one. I'm the engineering test pilot, and also the person who did the design and layout of the flight compartment on the 400.

[jetpet]

kudos :ok:

[DHC6to8]

Thank you Michael, I am glad to see that she is on floats! Fish finder would have been great!! You can be very proud of the work you have done so far, she is looking just great!
6to8
.... all this dhc-6 talk makes me want to get flying in one again!

[Cave Troll]

It is still as ugly as sin though!

I have never flown twatters so I can some tell me does this new one still take half an hour to do one standard circuit?

ct

[Spadhampton]

...about 5 mill?

What is your production capacity?

[Sir Osis of the river]

Cave Troll,

Its a Twotter, you ****.:E

Yes, it probably does still take that long for a circuit, but if you being paid per hour, WHO CARES?, and if you building hours all the better.

Michael, don't listen to the people "who live in the dark". The rest of us think you have done a great job and long may she fly:ok:

Sir O

PS: CT, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder:D

[DHC6to8]

Cave Troll... did you want horizontal or vertical circuits? I've flown both with the Twin Otter before... just need a good wind for the vertical ones!
6to8
... of all the aluminum I have flown around in my career... nothing comes close to having fun with the Twin Otter... floats, wheels or skis... if you can learn this machine - you learn flying... I always remember 'wearing' the Twin Otter, not flying it!

[Cave Troll]

Twatter , Twotter what is the diff. It is still slow as hell and ugly as sin. Sorry if I am stepping on toes but real aircraft fly faster than 150 Kts and higher than circuit alt. I left that stuff behind after my PPL. At least it has two engines though even if it still has the performance of your average trainer.

ct

[A10Warthog]

"Cave Troll" Nobody is forcing you to read this threat.
Take your negativ attitude somewhere else.

Go play with your remote airplanes!

[Gaius Westman]

Your ignorance of the Twotter's unique capabilities are disgusting.

I guess the only thing that would cut it for you would be a shiny B777 doing .84 from DXB to JNB.

Every airplane has unique characteristics that make it appropriate for certain missions. The Twin Otter is legendary for its short field performance, as well as working out of rough airfields. Its carrying capacity is solid, and it has a good safety record. What Viking and MM has done in updating the design for this century is outstanding.

Twotters are working across Africa, doing everything from helping out with oil exploration to humanitarian aid missions.

If you want to rip on the DHC-6 for only doing 150kts, well I can assure you that some of those guys flying the Twotter for Zimex and other oil companies are making similar salaries to folks flying those sparkling Airbus and Boeing widebodies in the Middle East.

GW

[DASHER 8]

C T what an ignoramus !!!!!

[chuks]

A Twotter is much faster than a speeding Toyota Land Cruiser, the only other option for reaching some of the places a Twotter can. You have Place A on one side of a steep mountain and Place B just 50 miles away on the other side, both with 800-metre dirt strips. Now, Genius, you tell me what use a Twotter might be?

CT, you might be surprised to find that you couldn't cut it, trying to fly one, ugly and slow as it is. Okay, instead of a stopwatch we use a calendar to time approaches but that doesn't mean it's as easy as you might think to look at it.

[DHC6to8]

I get it... you are a troll that lives in a cave of ignorance! I can spot a jealous wannabe a mile away! The Twin Otter allows those with skill, intelligence and understanding of her limits and abilities, the opportunity to do things that are unimaginable with other aircraft...... it builds character, experience and pilots... she is beautiful in all configurations, short nose, long nose, CAP floats, Whiplines ... whatever... I learned more about flying from Twin Otters than I ever did on anything else.... the rest were just boring in comparison... and the real funny thing is that I earned some of my best coin flying special missions or contracts on this work horse... beauty is in the eye of the beholder... so until you have flown her keep your negative comments to yourself!
6to8

[727gm]

What a beautiful machine on floats! .............. It would be wonderful to see a new-production Viking DHC-3 Turbine Otter (single), also!

[V1... Ooops]

For the benefit of Pprune forum members who are reading this discussion but may not be familiar with the DHC-6 aircraft, here’s a little bit of background about what the aircraft was designed to do, and what it can and cannot do – you could interpret this as “what it is good at, and what it is not good at”.

First, some history:

The Twin Otter design came about as a natural evolution of the DHC-3 single Otter, an aircraft that was first certified in 1952. In the early 1960s, Pratt and Whitney Canada developed the now legendary PT6A engine and offered it to de Havilland. Putting a PT6 on the well proven and by then legendary single Otter would not work, because at that time, the most powerful PT6 available was the 550 SHP -20 variant, and the single Otter was equipped with a 600 horsepower Wasp radial.

But – it was obvious to all that if the single Otter airframe could be fitted with TWO of these 550 SHP turboprop engines, the results would be spectacular. In 1964, the board of de Havilland gave the go-ahead for Twin Otter development, and in early 1965, the first Twin Otter flew. Several hundred were built over the next 3 years, all equipped with two 550 SHP engines.

In the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney Canada offered de Havilland the newly developed 680 SHP PT6A-27 engine, and after some testing, this was fitted to the Twin Otter beginning at serial number 231. This marked the beginning of “Series 300” production. To avoid the need to enlarge the empennage of the aircraft, de Havilland flat-rated the power output of the -27 engine to 620 horsepower. A very pleasant side effect of this flat-rating was that the engines would produce the full 620 HP takeoff power up to ISA +18°.

With the introduction of the Series 300 in 1969, this aircraft – which had originally been designed with the Canadian bush market in mind – suddenly caught the interest of civil, military, and humanitarian operators all over the world. When the de Havilland board authorized Twin Otter production in 1964, their goal was to sell 100 of them in Canada. By 1970, one year after the Series 300 was certified, production rates reached 100 aircraft per year, and almost all of these were being exported.

-------------------------------------

The unique advantage of a Twin Otter is that it can lift a 5,000 pound payload out of a 1,000 foot long unimproved surface, and deliver that payload to a 700 foot long unimproved surface 75 miles away in about 30 minutes flying time. Compared to the 110 to 120 knot cruising speed of other single engine bush aircraft available at the time (the DHC-2 Beaver, the DHC-3 single Otter, and the Norseman), the 150 knot block speed of the Twin Otter was considered ‘seriously fast’. It’s obviously not fast compared to today’s offerings such as the Cessna Caravan or the Pilatus PC-12, but neither of these very fine aircraft can lift as much load, nor can they operate off of the type (or short length) of unimproved surfaces that the Twin Otter can. It's also noteworthy that both of these aircraft are singles.

The disadvantage of the Twin Otter, of course, is that compared to other twin engine turboprops such as the 19 seat B-1900, it flies low and slow. But really, this is a ‘horses for courses’ issue. If you have to move 3,000 pounds over a 500 mile distance and you have 3,000 feet or more of pavement at each end, for sure you are going to choose the B-1900 – it’s the best tool for the job. However, if you only have 1,000 feet of grass, soft mud, or sand, or snow, or fallow farm field at each end, your choices are limited to a Twin Otter or shipping by road.

In Canada, where we have over 1 million lakes in our country, water operations are common. When fitted with floats, the Twin Otter is the largest production floatplane available, and it has a shorter water takeoff and landing run than any other certified aircraft – shorter than even the little 4 seaters. It is a truly amazing floatplane. In some countries (notably the Maldives Islands), Twin Otters are the backbone of the domestic transportation system, in much the same way that the A320 or B737 series is the backbone of the air transportation system in countries that have well developed airport infrastructure.

Within African aviation – the focus of our discussion here, and the environment that I have spent most of my career working in – the Twin Otter is obviously not the first choice if you want to operate routes from (for example) Goma to Nairobi, or Goma to Kinshasa. But, it’s the ONLY choice if you want to operate from Goma to 90% of the domestic Congolese airports within a 300 miles range and you want to do this with the same level of safety as you enjoy on a Part 25 aircraft such as the previously mentioned A320 or B737. The singles, by definition, just don’t give you that level of safety, and legacy aircraft manufactured last century, including the legacy Series 300, don’t have the contemporary avionics and safety systems that the new Twin Otters have. If you tried to retrofit all the safety systems found on a Series 400 Twin Otter to a Series 300 Twin Otter, the retrofit bill would come to over half a million dollars, and the resulting aircraft would weigh well over 1,000 pounds more than the new production Series 400 aircraft do.

Although the instrument panel pictures above look nice, what you can’t see is the safety equipment that is standard fitment to all Series 400 Twin Otters built for commercial operation. This includes dual Mode S EHS transponders, TCAS I, Class A TAWS, weather radar, dual GPS certified to the latest TSO specs, an integral Central Maintenance Monitoring System, dual recorders (CVR and FDR), a top of the line ESIS (Emergency Standby Instrument System) normally found only on Part 25 aircraft, a Crew Alerting System (CAS) equal to that of any new Part 25 aircraft, and a FMS that is identical in operation and functionality to that found in a G-550, Falcon 7X, or an Embraer 170 / 190 series airliner. This is no surprise when you consider that the whole integrated avionics suite is a direct descendant of the same avionics suite installed in these aircraft - compare the Falcon 7X flight deck in the photo above to the new Series 400 flight deck photo. What IS a surprise is that the first new production Twin Otter rolled out of the factory this spring weighing less than 7,000 pounds with all this equipment installed (that was green, without final paint or passenger seats installed).

We don’t expect that the new Twin Otter will cause Airbus and Boeing salesmen to start worrying that we are going to encroach on their ultra long haul market, and as far as we have heard, our friends at Gulfstream and Dassault aren’t too worried about us either. Heck, we don’t even compete with the superb new PC12E or the well established Cessna Caravan, both of which are also unique and well thought out aircraft that are designed to do a certain type of job better than any other aircraft.

The Series 400 is sort of like a “Swiss Army Knife” of aviation. It’s a specialty tool, albeit a very versatile specialty tool. You probably wouldn’t use a Swiss Army Knife to eat a meal at a white-tablecloth restaurant (although you could if you wanted to...), but if you are stuck in an undeveloped area, or an area that doesn’t permit construction of a 3,000 or 4,000 foot paved runway – well, there’s just nothing else that will get you in and out of there with the same level of safety as this remarkable flying “Swiss Army Knife”.

Michael

[5711N0205W]

Excellent, great to see the new aircraft Michael. :ok:

[Cave Troll]

Touchy touchy! All I said was that it was ugly as sin and slow. Two facts that you cannot change. As for me being ignorant with regard to the twotter I admit I am. I have never flown one. I have also never said it was a crap plane. I am sure it is good at what it does. As for Gaius W. no I don't fly a 777 at .84 or at any other speed and I don't want to. I also don't particularly want to fly a twotter so no I am not jealous or envious of you twotter crew. I am happy flying what I am flying right now {which also happens to be a "bush plane"}.

This all still does not change the fact that it is ugly and slow!

ct

V1...Ooops thanks. Now I am less ignorant!

[seper]

Cave troll

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Most of the folks on this thread are fond of this aircraft,do you really think they care what you think?

I actually find it quite gourgeous and "sexy" to say the least.
The beauty is in the "flying"

Trust me once you have flown one,you views will change.Its an iconic,practical,most forgiving,durable workhorse,who never lets you down.

I have flown at .78 for quite a while now,but for the right price............:}

[flyhardmo]

All I said was that it was ugly as sin and slow. Two facts that you cannot change.

When you are trying to take 18pax and luggage out of a short mud strip at elevation without any drama's then you start to see the beautiful side of the twotter. Whatever bush plane you are flying troll, i'm sure it can't match its performance. As for slow, well every aircraft is designed for its particular purpose. I do fly B777's at M0.84 but before that I was a twotter driver and it did everything the book said it would. It's tough, reliable and a sheer pleasure to fly. I would jump back in the beast on any given day for the pure pleasure of handling a wonderful machine.. Troll I was once like you and didn't think much of the DHC-6 but when you are behind the controls and she gets off the ground in a jaw dropping short distance its stays with you. 2500hrs on type and it never ceased to amaze me. Thats the emotion that all of these people posting in this forum feel when they praise its capabilities, strength, reliability and COMPLETE beauty. Cave troll, don't bother replying until you have had first hand experience at the controls. :=

[Tarq57]

How can anybody of normal perception think that one of these is ugly.
Beats me.
Never had the chance to fly in one (yet) but have had the pleasure of seeing one transit the airspace I was looking after, once.
They look perfect for the job they were designed for, like any of the DHC a/c, and not at all unattractive.
Don' bother replying until you have had first hand experience at the controls. :=
Sorry.
But I like them, and what they represent.

[Spadhampton]

....machines are not beautiful except in their functionality, and, reliability. They are not built to be beautiful, but made to look as beautiful as practical with paint and adornment. The true beauty of a machine is in it’s ability to perform what humans wish it to perform. In that, the Twin Otter is at the top of it’s class. More beautiful than any other of it’s kind.

[chuks]

Ugly goes right to the bone! And, yes, that is one ugly aircraft! If it were a girl you would say, "a very nice personality..." or "kind to children and small animals..." really meaning "ugly enough to crack glass!" But what of that?

If you know how to ask nicely it will do all sorts of amazing tricks for you. What some guys overlook, though, is that it's a high-wing design that sits way high up off the ground so no "land and fahgeddaboutit" as with a Cessna 402 or a Beech Baron. No, you have to fly it all the way to the parking stand when the balmy desert breeze is blowing hard enough to pull the fur off the camel spiders. Many is the time I told my FO not to jinx us when he or she said, "Nice landing." It ain't landed until it's tied down!

[Sir Osis of the river]

And there you have it Mike,

Besides one insignificant TROLL, there is a unanimous agreement that what you and Viking have achieved is a work of art and a workhorse.

The Twotter is one of a kind and there is nothing that can replace her. I agree with a lot of sentiments here that given the right salary, (unfortunately reality is Kids and a mortgage), I would gladly swap my shiny .82 Tube for 150Kts and a 400m runway. :ok:

Sir O

[Propstop]

I first had a flight in a Twotter in 1967 and my first maintenance course on them in 1969. In the ensuing years I have spent a lot of time looking after them in many countries and love them to bits. I know, as does Michael, how much punishment they can be given and still come back for more, and will carry anything which can be put in them with a ferry weight of 17500lb
No, they are not really maintenance friendly but have heaps of character and a presence which cannot be ignored and as such is my favourite aircraft.
The -400 is testament that the original design was functional, and I expect they will be still flying long after I have shuffled my mortal coil as I daresay there is another 50 years of flying in the type yet, maybe as a -500 !!
The ultimate flying utility truck, ugly yet beautiful, and very functional.

[Spadhampton]

...for a Twin Otter captain and work them about 4 or 5 months out of 12. About 80 to 150 flight hrs each month. Salary + full med + per diem. No tax exemption. Travel and accommodations paid. Very specialized flying. Only U.S. citizens need apply though, but I'm working on that.

[chuks]

Is this the same Cave Troll who shows up elsewhere with the designation "Ground School"? Perhaps we can write him off as knowing very, very little about anything to do with the sort of work a Twotter does! Now he is less ignorant but there must be plenty more where that came from to take such a stance toward this wonderful machine.

I am slightly biased, having cut my teeth on the DHC-3 as a mechanic, before I became a pilot. Ahh, DeHavilland!

I was with a certain British operator flying Twotters when a Brit joined us to fly our King Air 200. In his simple mind his 250-knot airplane gave him such massive cred compared to my 166-knot airplane that he could be ever so condescending. Well, aside from being a Brit with a Brit ATPL where I only had an FAA ATP, which everyone knows is ever so easy to get! Derr...

Of course I didn't bother to point out to the poor simpleton that I did have a rating on the Citation or that I had just been tooling around in a Cessna 441 with souped-up engines that would do 295 knots and leave a King Air for dead but just left him basking in his warm pool of pee.

As things developed the Company asked me to check out in the King Air, when to his surprise I could actually cope with the challenge of its blinding speed, yawn... Then the fun really started when I checked out on the Dornier 328 and ended up with Mr King Air Pilot in the RHS! Second place to a Twotter pilot! He just about lost his mind over that one, the muppet.

The fact is that you can take a lot of people and put them in a King Air or a Cessna Citation, even, with absolutely no problem at all but they might not be able to master a Twotter and its quirky ways, demanding certain stick-and-rudder skills as it does. It is "horses for courses" when to operate into or out of a short strip on a blazing hot day in a fully-loaded Twotter, that might look simple but in reality you still have to hit the numbers just right, same as operating an airliner.

It is very much like the stupid idea many airplane drivers have that flying helicopters is somehow much less demanding, to think that because a Twotter is slow and has fixed gear, that must make it easy to operate. Once you have mastered it then you can make it look easy but it can eat some newbie's lunch! We even had a retired Air Farce T-39 pilot manage to drag a wingtip on a Twotter when it got away from him. Oops.

[Cardinal Puff]

CT

Please tell me you're not calling a C208 a bush aircraft. They're just too soft and not up to the job for really hairy conditions. The Twotter, on the other hand, eats it up with a spoon.

If you're referring to a PC6 we may have some common ground...:ok:


Cue outraged frothing from the 'Van drivers....

[DaFly]

Guys, why are you even reacting to people like CT? He can't be serious, probably just a wind up.

I have never flown a Twin Otter. Like most other pilots here, I have flown a lot of different planes. And I do fondly remember my times in the Caravan, even if it doesn't match the Twotter specs. What I want to say is, as a good pilot, one certainly enjoys operating any good aircraft in the environment it is made for.
On the other hand, neither is it specially enjoyable to fly 400NM+ in a STOL plane nor is it a joy to land a citation on a 1300 m gravel strip.

But then again, you do get those guys, that always have to look up to the next faster and larger type. What do they do, once (if ever) they sit in a 747?

[chuks]

We had a run from Lagos to Jos in a Twotter, when sometimes you could get very strong winds. There you sat looking at a GPS speed readout of 130 knots as Nigeria crawled past, the River Niger, Bida, Abuja, the little railway station at the foot of the Jos Plateau, out in the distance Jos Aiport, just another ten or fifteen minutes to go now...

One I looked out the window to see a small, grey object flying formation with the Twotter. Yes, it was my brain, bored out of my skull. Thank God for the BBC World Service on the HF!

Going back to Lagos, 200 knots GS! Bwoah-ey!

Later, in the Dornier 328Jet I was feeling sorry for myself because it would only do .66 Mach, when that also seemed slow on a trip from Gao to Marrakech. It really is all relative.

[galaxy flyer]

V1...oops

I see temps in CKPT and CABIN in the pics, did you install a heating and A/C ACM?

GF

[Cave Troll]

As I said in my previous post. "Touchy touchy". Really you guys need to get a life if you are actually getting all wound up over me calling the twotter slow and ugly.

To Chucks: As for me being "Ground School" elsewhere it is because I have only fairly recently signed up there. How that shows my experience or knowledge level I have no idea.

To C Puff: Yes I would say the van is a bush plane and a good one and yes it is both better looking and faster than the twotter. Yes I am biased toward the van and no I am not flying it at the moment {or the PC 6 for that matter}. Once again this is MY opinion.

TO Dafly: No I am not a "wind up" I just have my opinion.

So to all you who are getting your knickers in a knot about my opinion why not get off my case and get back talking about aircraft.

ct

[chuks]

You would be surprised how much real affection you can hold for the Twotter. I started out as a Flight Instructor and then the first "real" job I had was as an FO on a Twotter for a start-up regional in the States. On the back of that I had a series of jobs where I would get bucked off into a thorn patch trying to get onto jets and end up with unasked-for Twotter flying saving my bacon repeatedly.

In fact, one guy who didn't treat the Twotter with the respect it deserved ended up with it reaching around and biting him severely, when I got yet another summons to do a spell of Twottering that led to my finally getting, yes, that jet job!

Treat the Twotter with the respect it deserves and it will at least repay you with loyal service; with a bit of luck it will also help along your career.

I just did two years in the Sahara on Twotters, operating off 800-metre gypsum strips out in the middle of nowhere when that was the best machine for the job, I think.

If you really want to get noticed, as here, just diss the Twotter and the people who fly or have flown it and then stand by for "Incoming!" If you knew anything about it then you probably would hold it in the same regard pretty much everyone else here does. To denigrate it makes one come across pretty much as a "troll," yes, just like all those guys with as close to zero hours as makes no difference who say that Airbus rules and Boeing is crap or vice-versa.

Why should you want to come across as a jerk, though? Might it not be better to either find something nice to say about this well-liked aircraft or else start your own thread where you can tell us how the Caravan is the perfect aircraft for beginner bush pilots, as it does seem to be? Why pee on the campfire?

I have a few hours in the Caravan and I wouldn't mind a job flying one but it seems to be nowhere near as rugged as a Twotter, plus I am kind of old-fashioned so that I still think two donkeys are better than one! Too, the way you climb into a Twotter, just grabbing any old thing (except that goddam glare shield!), you try that on a Caravan you probably will end up with something coming off in your hand! Just my idea there...

[V1... Ooops]

...I see temps in CKPT and CABIN in the pics, did you install a heating and A/C ACM?

No, we just installed two small temperature sensors for reporting purposes only. They are about an inch in diameter and mount flush with the ceiling . One is about where the 'old' flight compartment dome light previously was, the other is in the center of the ceiling abeam row 5.

The rationale for them is that there can be quite a difference between flight compartment and cabin temperature, because the flight compartment can get quite a bit of sunlight (the cabin not) - so, they are there to assist the pilot to adjust heating or (optional) air conditioning to maintain a comfortable cabin temperature.

Michael

[Cardinal Puff]

CT

As you say, merely your opinion. Perhaps if you had time on type you'd have an informed opinion.

Here's an experiment for you - Put the 'Van on floats and see how long that firewall lasts in even a mild chop.:hmm:

[V1... Ooops]

...I would say the van is a bush plane and a good one and yes it is both better looking and faster than the twotter...

There is no doubt that the Cessna Caravan is a very useful and commercially successful aircraft. Cessna certainly hit the ball over the fence when they designed the Caravan.

It's not really possible to say that a Caravan or a Twin Otter is the best aircraft for a specific purpose unless you first assess exactly what the needs of the route to be served are. Each aircraft brings its own strengths and weaknesses along with it, and it's not a zero-sum game. For example, the Caravan is a bit faster than the Twin Otter, but the Twin Otter lifts more and requires less runway (for the same payload).

On the other hand, the Caravan is considerably less expensive. I don't know what Caravans cost, but my guess is you could probably buy two of them for the price of a Twin Otter. That would be the right thing to do if you have to travel long distances with fairly light loads (what the package courier companies do with the Caravans), but it might not be the right thing to do if you need to carry larger loads, or more people, or if you have to traverse areas that are not suitable for single engine operations.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that both of these aircraft are specialized tools. You can't say that one is better than the other; all you can do is say that one is a better choice than the other for a specific purpose. Even that is a bit of a mug's game, because for every example you can cite where aircraft 'A' is the better choice, there is a different example where aircraft 'B' would be a better choice.

Although there are a limited number of routes where the competencies of the two aircraft overlap, I really don't think that they compete with each other. Each is unique.

Michael

[Spadhampton]

During the wet months it is severely restricted where it can land in the "bush". Only in Africa would people think of the Caravan as a bush plane and you can tell by the number of their smashed carcasses dotting the landscape stripped of anything of value to be flown in some other piece of crap preparing for it's final resting place...in the bush.

The Twin Otter is the king of the Bush. However, the C-18 may be the new king considering where I have seen that monster land.

[lilflyboy262]

The caravan seems to be holding up ok in the Okavango Delta. And we get some serious flooding and messed up runways...

Horses for courses though.

Although in saying that... the company is looking at getting a twin otter if the pax numbers pick up a little more...

Fingers crossed.

[tickler]

Hope they installed something to scrape the mud off your boots with;)....looking forward to meeting it!

V1..oops,I dont mean to set the cat among the pigeons but i dont think you can compare the twotter cockpit and screens to an Abrahams tank.
Tank crews and equipment enjoy collective protection of the entire tank with purified air under positive-pressure ventilation.ie no dust!
I know the old 1900D screen used to pick up a reasonable amount of snags due to some of the harsh enviroments out there and they dont compare to areas where the Otter is used.
A 3 year warranty just means they fix it when it chokes up.How they plan to do this when you stuck in Bor,South Sudan will be interesting.
Time will tell!

[Spadhampton]

...oh ye of little faith. You forget whom is building the airplane and testing it. People whom have been to "Bor" and the like.

[V1... Ooops]

Tickler:

I don't think that there will be any difficulty with operation of the integrated avionics system in difficult environments. Our Series 400 technical demonstrator has been flying for a year and a half now, and we have ocean (saltwater) less than one km either side of our airport. We intentionally park the aircraft outside all the time, and have not observed any effects at all from this difficult environment.

The display screens are an entirely different technology from those used in the B-1900. They are contemporary flat panel displays. The display system is sealed.

The whole avionics bay has its own air supply system, which is filtered.

It is, in fact, quite possible that the first production aircraft may be deployed to Sudan (the customer who is taking delivery of it operates most of their aircraft in desert environments), and we have done a heck of a lot of testing to ensure that the aircraft and its systems will be robust enough for the regions we expect the aircraft to be deployed to.

Michael

[chuks]

When we switched from the Twotter to the Dornier 328 we jumped right into the wonderful world of the Honeywell Primus 2000 glass cockpit.

Many of us expected lots of trouble with the cockpit displays due to the heat (40+° C), dust (thick, choking Harmattan) and humidity (99% relative in the rainy season) yet they proved to be very robust, when this came as a pleasant surprise.

There is a "burn-in" period (often done at the factory prior to shipping, nowadays) and if the display doesn't fail right then it will usually give a long and trouble-free life because of its very nature, being solid-state with almost no moving parts aside from some line-select keys, when even they are usually just thin-film devices. (Just think about what the inside of an FD-109 looks like, like a goddam Swiss watch, so much more vulnerable to wear and contamination than a solid-state device. You really think that is better?)

Even if you lost one display then you still have the other one plus the stand-by instruments to get home on. Who is the wimp here who is going to put his hand up to tell us he cannot manage a 166-knot bush plane with a partial panel? Not me!

[Spadhampton]

still would like my standby analog airspeed indicator....and.....Horizon. Ok so I’m a wimp.

Its just that I keep having this reoccurring nightmare where the glass goes spinning on then approach and I stabilize the spin….only to discover that my glide slope is really my airspeed scale on the horizontal! Then I wake up in a sweat, have a glass of milk, and, realize that I don’t have to worry about such crap anymore!

Ha Ha!

[V1... Ooops]

The Series 400 has an ESIS (Electronic Standby Instrument System) that is entirely independent of the aircraft electrical system. It is physically and electrically firewalled from the rest of the avionics systems. It has its own battery - located in the empennage for zonal separation - and the battery will keep it going for 6 hours, which is pretty much the limit of fuel endurance of the aircraft.

The ESIS provides airspeed, attitude, altitude, and magnetic heading from its own independent and dedicated magnetometer.

It is the L3 GH-3100, the exact same ESIS that Boeing chose for the BBJ, and Gulfstream chose for the G-550. It is the best and most robust ESIS on the market.

It would have made no sense at all to put three mechanical standby instruments (AI, DG, ASI) into an aircraft that has an otherwise all-electronic suite. If the crew ever lost all the electronics, they would have to transition back to interpreting round dials just when their workload was the highest. The GH-3100 is configured so that the electronic display on the ESIS is identical to the electronic display on the primary panels.

[chuks]

With the new displays in the Dornier there certainly was a period of adjustment. Those "tapes" for airspeed and altitude were much harder to interpret than the old-fashioned "steam gauges," no question about that.

Once you get used to the big flat panel display, able to focus on each bit of information as and when it is needed, you will find that there is simply so much more information available to you in the same amount of space; it is a much more efficient way of telling you what you need to know, just that it's done in a new and different way.

Michael can tell us more about this, no doubt but conventional wisdom is that the younger guys, having grown up with Personal Computers, can adjust very quickly to the new technology when we "old guys" can take longer. I didn't have such a lot of trouble with that but there certainly were a few sessions where you could hear, "What is it doing now?" At least with the Twotter that is going to happen at 160 knots or less instead of 250 knots or more, so cheer up; it could be worse!

The main problem seemed to be, particularly with the young guys, being dragged down to focus on the displays and the FMS, forgetting to keep good SA and a visual scan going. Some of these guys were typing away on that stupid FMS, trying to get it sorted out, when I would just kick off the autopilot (or go into Heading mode) and get it pointed in the right direction using the Mark I human brain, more powerful than any computer yet invented.

[Gooneybird]

I can't say I ever really noticed any significant speed difference between the Twin Otter and the Van to be honest. The Van actually had the better payload over a longer distance though.

Michael, what is the fuel burn and the usefulload of the -400?

[Spadhampton]

What is the van's nose gear sink rate in African mud?

[Gaius Westman]

I always thought the Twotter was a wee bit quicker than a Van. I worked for an operator that had both and flew them over the same city pairings. Usually they'd get there a touch faster. Of course the Vans I flew had pods - perhaps a podless C208 would be quicker than an Otter.

[Spadhampton]

...but the dentures are not ready as yet. I have to read a couple of resumes tonight for interviews first thing in the morning. I wonder how the lads will "adjust" to not being able to understand a darn thing I say?

This is going to be fun.

[V1... Ooops]

Chuks makes some very good points in his post above, among them:

- it takes a little while to get used to any new presentation of information, and;

- there is a correlation between pilot age and time required to adapt to new paradigms.

However – we have carried out a great deal of “human factors” testing of the new avionics suite, using about a dozen pilots ranging in age from late 20s to early 70s, and no-one encountered any difficulty adapting to the new presentation. In the course of our testing, we provided each pilot with one day of classroom training (explaining how the system and the displays worked), about 90 minutes of circuit work (to get used to “where to look” to find information), then we set off on a multi-leg IFR cross-country trip in a busy environment (Vancouver and Seattle terminals) that included precision and non-precision approaches, system failures, engine failures, and multiple display screen failures leading eventually to single-screen reversion.

No-one had difficulty completing the program (although at times, the workload got quite high, as could be expected on a partial panel single engine approach), and the pilots unanimously reported that the new display system (the Apex flat-panel displays, vs. old round dials) resulted in a reduction in pilot workload.

There are three of us who work at Viking as engineering test pilots, we range in age from 49 to 70 (I’m in the middle at 55), and we have between 4,000 and 16,000 hours on the legacy Twin Otters. So, our own internal testing team is biased towards the upper end of the age range. Although it is true that as chronological age increases, time required to learn a new paradigm increases, it also needs to be noted that older pilots have greater knowledge and experience on which to attach newly learned paradigms. In other words – we ‘older’ pilots learn a bit more slowly than the kids, but we yield a better product once we have completed our learning. That’s why our age group is dominant in the left seat of high-tech stuff like the new Airbus, Boeing, Gulfstream, and Dassault products.

But - to be fair to the young ones and to not get caught up in any age discrimination lawsuits, :) we hope to hire a teenage pilot (who has over 1,500 hours DHC-6 time) as a summer intern, if we can get budget approval for this.

---------------------

So far as extracting information from the plane is concerned, it’s a whole heck of a lot easier to extract information from the new display system than it is to extract information from the legacy round dial system. Have a look at the photo below, which was taken just shortly after rotation. Once you know where to look (you will be able to figure that out just by observation), you can pretty easily discern the following information – in addition to the usual altitude, speed, heading information:

1) There’s nothing wrong with the engines, because all the indications are white text on a grey background.

2) Power (torque) is lower than it should be, it is about 46 and needs to be nudged up to 50.

3) Takeoff power setting limits are being applied. In other words, the gauge redlines depicted are based on the published limits for takeoff power.

4) Speed is limited to 103 knots at the high end because flaps are still extended to 10°.

5) Airspeed is stable (for all intents and purposes). In 6 seconds, airspeed will increase to 93 knots if the present attitude and power setting is maintained – note the trend line.

6) The aircraft is climbing steadily at 1,200 FPM towards the target altitude of 7,000 feet, and in 6 seconds time, it will pass through 3,900 feet.

7) The aircraft is still quite close to the ground, as indicated by both the numeric readout of radar altitude in the bottom of the attitude indicator (180 feet), and – more prominently – by the diagonal yellow lines at the bottom of the altitude tape that indicate where the ground begins.

8) The first fix is half a mile ahead, and the aircraft is pointed straight at it.

------------------------------

For what it’s worth, the company replaced my Blackberry with an iPhone last week, and I am having a heck of a lot more difficulty making the transition between those two devices than I (or anyone else) has ever had changing from round dials to the Apex display. ;)

Michael

Series 400 Twin Otter Primary Flight Display, Shortly After Rotation
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/ShortlyafterRotation.jpg

[V1... Ooops]

Here’s what the engine window (in the upper inboard corner of the primary flight display) would look like if there were any problems that required the pilot’s attention. In the photo below, you can see that there is a fire indication on both engines, that there is a minor exceedence (a caution level condition) affecting fuel flow, and there is a gross exceedence (a warning level condition) affecting gas generator speed. All of these problems would be accompanied by a CAS (Crew Alerting System) text message that spells the problem out in plain English, such as “Left Engine Fire”, “Left Fuel Flow Low”, and “Left Ng Low”.

Note also that the aircraft has recognized that one engine has been shut down in flight, and it has automatically recalibrated the markings for all the engine limits to show the limits applicable to single-engine flight (the maximum continuous limits).


Visual Depiction of Engine Limit Exceedence
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae275/Paneuropean/EngineProblems1.jpg

[Gooneybird]

Goony....
What is the van's nose gear sink rate in African mud?

I wouldn't know mate, I am a Twin Otter pilot, suggest you ask that to Van pilot, perhaps they could help you ;)

[Spadhampton]

Ah yes....of course.

[Van Der]

Anyone got an update on the -400, heard narra since Farnbourgh airshow and announcement of delivery to the customer of the first aircraft.

Grapevine rumblings are that there are some certification delays?

[V1... Ooops]

The Series 400 Twin Otter was added to the Canadian Type Certificate for the DHC-6 by Transport Canada in June of 2010. It has been certified, in fact, the new Type Certificate was presented to Viking at the Farnborough Air Show.

Obtaining certification in the country of manufacture (Canada) is a prerequisite for obtaining a type certificate in other countries that issue Type Certificates independently (e.g. America, Europe).

[Carrier]

V1...,
Great work and thanks for the regular updates and responses to readers' questions but there is one thing that puzzles me. I am wondering why you started this thread in the African Aviation forum instead of the Canada forum? I am also wondering why the moderators have not transferred it.
The Canada forum would seem to be the logical place for a thread on a Canadian aircraft re-entering production in Canada. Presumably it is the intent to offer it for sale worldwide, rather than just in Africa outside of Canada.

[Cardinal Puff]

I'm not complaining.:ok:

[avionimc]

Is there a new series 400 simulator in the works at Flight Safety Canada? Or Simcom or else?

[Van Der]

@ V1...Oops

Was not refering to the Type Certificate but the C of A.
Seeing Farnborough was in July, what has happened to it since then?

What about the next one off the production line, when is that due for delivery and to whom?

[V1... Ooops]

...there is one thing that puzzles me. I am wondering why you started this thread in the African Aviation forum instead of the Canada forum?

Ah... :) ...well, I guess it's because I spent most of my flying career flying Twin Otters in Africa, and this forum is where most of my on-line friends hang out. That's probably not a very good reason, but it is the closest I can get to giving you a decent answer.

Plus, of course, there are a lot of Twin Otters in use in Africa (not to mention a lot of Twin Otter pilots here in this forum)!

Michael

[Carrier]

There are still some legacy smaller production aircraft and far too many home-builts that carry fuel in the fuselage in close proximity to the human occupants. This is a safety hazard that has apparently caused unnecessary post crash fires and resulting deaths and injuries.

Years ago Cessna recognised the safety aspect of having aircraft fuel tanks located well away from the passenger accommodation. Most aircraft have fuel tanks in the wings but with some models Cessna even went beyond this, concentrating the fuel tanks in the outer part of the wing or in tip tanks.

The original DHC-6 Twin Otters carry fuel in belly tanks within the fuselage. Has the New Production Series 400 Twin Otter been redesigned to carry no fuel within the fuselage? If not, why not? If it does, then full credit for upgrading the design to meet current safety standards.

This raises the general question. Should aircraft designs being put back into production not be required to meet all current safety standards rather than perpetuating less safe legacy/grandfather standards? What do others think on this issue?

[V1... Ooops]

Hi Carrier:

I can only offer you my personal opinion, which is that because the Twin Otter is a fixed gear aircraft - and one with very robust fixed gear at that - I think the risks arising from carrying fuel in the belly of the aircraft are pretty minimal.

If a single main gear leg collapses, the aircraft will pivot about the wingtip, the belly does not hit the ground if the wing is not deformed. If the wing does deform, well, any fuel that would have been carried in the wing would spill, thus negating the benefit of carrying fuel out there.

I appreciate your point that fuel carried in the belly could be a hazard in the event of a gear collapse or gear-up landing of a retractable gear aircraft, but I don't think much risk of that exists with the Twin Otter design.

I think the reason that most aircraft (that have wing fuel storage) put the fuel way out at the end of the wing has to do with reducing wing bending moment, not moving the fuel away from the passengers. If you purchase a Twin Otter with optional extended range wing fuel tanks, they are way out at the very end of the wing - in order to reduce the wing bending moment.

Michael

[Cardinal Puff]

What MM said. Never had a problem with the belly tanks myself and have never heard of it being a problem. In fact, for bush operations with primitive facilities, the tanks are ideally situated for ease of access and for a visual check before entering the aircraft.

[Shrike200]

Time and again I was thankful that the fuel tanks were in the belly - makes for a MUCH easier job refuelling from drums out in the sticks.

[captafolly]

Hi pls does anyone know where i can get a twin otter -400 series type rating from. thanks

[4runner]

Concerned about fuel in the belly? Perhaps you should voice your concerns to Boeing, Bombardier and Airbus.

[verderol]

Very fancy airplane, but how come that with all that "intergalactic" and useless equipment for bush operation, the AUTOPILOT has NOT been yet certified.:ugh:

without mentioning the fact that , the ANTI intuitive honeywell sistem doesn't allow you to have a quick situational awareness of all the user waypoints ( only one at a time is displayed on the map).

Don't get me wrong.. I love the twinotter ....but is there an avionics update in the near future, or we have to wait another 3 years ??