Caribou Replacement..
 

G'day,

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-31477,00.html

Favoured option 10-12 C-27J's in 2010-11.

The article makes reference to the fact that there may be a follow-on order if not all the C-130H's are replaced.

As an outsider to ALG it appears to be a nice balance of C-17's, J Models and C-27's, any thoughts? How about on the possible retirement of the H Models?

It might not be long before the AP-3C is by far the longest serving aircraft in the RAAF fleet! :ok:

PLE..

The last time that the RAAF looked at Caribou replacement options the C295 came out on top because it represented significantly better value for money than the C27 Spartan - despite its commonality with the C130J. (more hulls for the same money)

The other issue that surfaced is that both replacement options have tandem main gear which tends to cause the aircraft to bog when doing tight 180 degree turns on soft unsealed strips. The Caribous gear conficuration doesn't have this porblem.

Well, to give you some perspective as someone who's flown the Caribou, E,H and J Herc (before proceeding to "greener" pastures! ;) ), and the CN235 with the IPTN chief test pilot when it came out here some years ago trying to sell itself as a Caribou replacement, I really just don't think there is any aeroplane at all which can truly replace the Caribou.

At least not in exactly the same role with the same capabilities. They just don't make fixed wing aircraft of that size which can do what the 'Bou does anymore. If they do get the C27J, I'm not saying it will be a bad aeroplane, but it will clearly be a compromise in payload versus short/rough/soft field capability, no matter what the manufacturer says.

As for the H. Not long of this world I'm afraid. A "few" years if they're lucky. There are all sorts of retirement dates being bandied around, most of which are hugely optimistic IMHO, and will cost enormous amounts of money to achieve. It has been a great workhorse, but the old girl has had a demanding role and has become pretty battered and bruised. It was only ever destined to be replaced by the C130J (despite the vehement protestations of certain Navs and Flight Engineers!) as the Herc is a fundamentally good design for what it's supposed to do.

I think it'll be a good transport force if it eventuates that way. The C-17 is a good aeroplane, even if it was only with the benefit of hindsight that the RAAF ended up with it. It was purchased in a real hurry because the Government finally woke up to the fact (after several years) that it couldn't keep sending troops and equipment on big deployments to the four corners of the earth, without a true long-range transport and having to rely on contracted Antonovs, a couple of rusty clapped-out 707s :p , etc, etc. I just hope they continue to fund it logistically.

How many times is this that the RAAF have looked for a true replacement for the Caribou?? It's been going on for decades - back to when the F-27 was being considered. I don't blame them for wanting to get rid of the R2000 round engines! (Although I'll miss that great sound!)

The only aircraft to replace the Caribou's unique performance - is another Caribou, preferably with PT6A-67's or PW100 engines!!!

I believe the RAAF DHC4's have only 15,000 to 20,000 hours on the airframes. One would think it important enough to retain their unique STOL capability, to completely refurbish and update engines to turbines, whilst also buying a mid size transport?

Thats what I would have thought the sensible thing to do. often wondered why they haven't done it. would only make a grand old lady, grander.

got made redundent in 93 at Hawker de Havilland due to the caribou going into retirement,but once again their was nothing left to replace it's capabilities,so it remained in service up to now,and there's is still nothing around like the caribou that can get around Papua New Guinea,good luck finding a replacement

Torres,

Have heard that line just recently...

I was fortunate enough to be at Omaka over Easter where an RAAF Caribou was displaying.

The commentators used that line ".. the only aircraft to replace a Caribou is another Caribou". FWIW there was also discussion that there is more than just a possibility that the 'Bou basic design may go back into production, but with updated (presumably turboprop) powerplants.

Having seen the 'Bou's STOL performance and heard the stories of its operational performance in some pretty tight spots, I can easily believe the commentators were right:

".. the only aircraft to replace a Caribou is another Caribou".

The RAAF looked at re-engining the Caribou with a turboprop many, many moons ago but I believe they ran into all sorts of CofG problems with the lighter engine.

On top of that the problem isn't just the engines - the RAAF has had problems sourcing other components for many years. I dare say it's all becoming a tad expensive keeping the old girls flying. I guess it all comes down to whether or not the Caribou's full capability is actually required.

They did try to re-engine the Bou in the early 90's. Not the RAAF, I believe it was Dehav's.

Here is the result of the final test flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5S_pP4_MII

Whilst the accident was not the fault of the modifications, the loss of the prototype in such a way probably took all the steam out of the project.

Don't try to take of with control locks engaged...

Yes, that was a very sad day, I believe it happened due to Human error, I have been told that during the P&W conversion the control locks were moved to some obscure place. Stranger things have happened than crews not checking free movement of controls. Very unfortunate. :(

I am pretty sure that the South Africans use the Buffalo a lot in their military and the Canadians use it a lot as well, for civil SAR work as well.

I read somewhere that some of the capability lost if/when they replace the Caribou could be picked up by the Chinook’s.

Another bad day for the Caribou. Struck by an out-going artillery round.


http://gunsagogo.org/0009/0124.jpg

Holy Christ.......... thats both a spectacular and horrifying picture. :eek:

"I read somewhere that some of the capability lost if/when they replace the Caribou could be picked up by the Chinook’s."

Yes, at an estimated $20,000 + per hour.

A Chook is not a Bou replacement!

The Buffalo is a DHC5 with 2 x GE T64-10 engines. It is not a turbine DHC4 Caribou conversion. Different aircraft.

The PT6A-57 engine is already FAA certified in the DHC4 Caribou - but these are military aircraft and don't require civil certification.

My guess US$5 mill per airframe and Australia could retain the unique Caribou capability for another 20 years, with reliable turbines, refurbished and modern avionics etc.

Tell me again how much military aircraft you get for US$5 mill per airframe?

I believe the turbine Caribou was brought out and tested in Australia. On its first flight it landed at one of its typical operational destinations - a dusty bush strip - and sucked in so much dust that both turbines packed it in almost straight away. End of assessment by RAAF, thanks for coming.

Wasn't someone in Canada building them again to the original spec's, with up-rated piston engines? Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

http://www.ausairpower.net/ADA-5190-Analysis.html

Worth a read

That crash video is hard to watch, all right. I believe it was a smallish company looking to re-engine the Caribou with turboprops, and the pilot was the videographer's son or close relative.
In the piston Caribou, the control lock lever is sensibly positioned in front of the roof-mounted throttles so they can't be advanced very far if it's in the lock position.
In this turbine version, as I recall the story going, the throttles were down on the center console in a more traditional position, and so the protection provided by the control lock failsafe was no longer there. Who knows why he didn't check the controls before takeoff, but it happened, and that's the sad result.

The 'bou is the only fixed-wing aircraft I've seen fly backwards - was on STOL approach to the grass cross-strip at Riccy, in a decent northerly blow, about 50' up when a gust came through and pushed it about half-a-length backwards. :ok:

Any talk about A400M acquisition? Then again, that thing's been beset by so many problems, eg. Germans reducing their orders, etc.

What do the Seppos use for tactical in-theatre transport? Is that what the Osprey tilt-rotor thingy is supposed to do?

THAT is a very sad picture 'Scotty'.

I couldn't even begin to imagine what was going on inside the aeroplane...

Any further details available? Like whose aircraft? Location? (Other than 'Somewhere in Viet..')

Regards.