Britten Norman Islanders [Love em or Hate em?]
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sturdy little aeroplane...
It is wonderful that this sturdy little aeroplane can draw so much attention after more than 45 years of manufacture. Obviously there will always be protagonists and antagonists for any product, the level of positive support impresses me for the Islander.
What antagonists are failing to understand is that the Islander was manufactured to fill a specific niche market. That is, multi-engine short duration legs over water or other inhospitable terrain, into and out of short, poorly prepared strips. The aeroplane design concept was very much in line with that other uniquely British product, the LandRover. Both are designed to be solid, like a brick outhouse, and to carry a tonne where others cannot go.
Over 1200 Islanders have been manufactured since 1965. In that time there have been many thousands of modifications. The aeroplanes have been largely custom built for individual owners, so that means there are effectively over 1200 different model Islanders. Most of the modifications relate to only one aircraft. The way the Type Certificate holder designs each mod means that most of the mods could go onto any aircraft, even as an after market addition. In choosing such a path, the design of the Islander has grown in an evolutionary manner, rather than revolutionary. Mods that pop the design up into another niche have been largely avoided because there are other aircraft already servicing those areas. Progress has meant that whilst every Islander is a little different, any Islander is recognisable and flyable by someone with Islander knowledge and experience. So far, no one has managed a design that better suits the Islanders niche than the original Britten Norman.
Specifically note that BN, as a small manufacturer has chosen the evolutionary design change through modification path because large mod or design changes are simply too expensive to be supported by the small volume of sales.
On different model designations, these are usually a change to the base line mod state. The latest model available is the BN2C-300. It comes with an additional row of passenger windows, 3 bladed scimitar props and some other improvements over the BN2B-20 mod state.
The 3 bladed Hartzell straight props have been available for a long time. These allow much smoother and quieter operations over the traditional 2 bladed props. The scimitar 3 bladed props allow a further reduction of noise levels by enabling the achievement of full power at 70 RPM less than the older models. With either mod now available, I am surprised any Islander has 2 bladed props.
The third row of passenger windows is a recent innovation whereby a properly incorporated and reinforced mod is added in a primary structure area of the fuselage. An older FAA STC third row window is not considered safe by the type certificate holder because the STC designer did not have factory backing or calculations when cutting the holes. IE in all probability, the older STC aircraft have written off fuselages...
The BN2T is a specific model option with an alternative engine. The idea being that not everybody can source avgas easily, and not everybody is happy with piston engine reliability. BN2T fuel flows are around 170 litres per hour versus say 120 litres per hour for a BN2B-20. With the same amount of fuel on board, clearly turbines will have slightly less range than the piston, but in most instances, people will not be using their Islanders outside the above mentioned niche. In that niche, turbine Islanders, due to the much lighter engines and the significantly higher maximum all up weight, can carry more into and out of the destination airfields.
In the surveillance or special mission role, turbine engines offer greater flexibility in terms of speed and altitude, and very long endurance/loiter times coupled with much smoother and quieter operations. IE the turbine engine is magnitudes quieter than the piston models.
On corrosion inspections, when operating at low level over water, or in inhospitable tropical climates, all aeroplanes will suffer from corrosion. BN introduced a service bulletin to ensure proper inspection, detection and treatment every other year for aeroplanes over 5 years old. Not performing the inspection ensures high levels of corrosion and associated expensive repairs. I suppose the point I am making is that the SB 190 was introduced because the aeroplanes live for so long in a corrosive environment. That doesn't mean the design is wrong or the metal is easily corroded, just that all aeroplanes will corrode and BN has an inspection to help minimise the problem and to reduce the cost of repairs. It is an ongoing project to have the SB absorbed into the normal maintenance manual.
I will not comment on ergonomics because custom built aircraft are designed to order, so you can hardly blame a designer for poor ergonomics if it is what the customer wanted.
In this modern day of product liability, whilst many people want to innovate and make suggestions for improvements, people must understand that the type certificate holder has to spend money on any re-design or modification. This can be prohibitively expensive for a small manufacturer. BN prides itself on satisfying the needs of customers, and most new modifications are therefore derived from new aircraft buyers. IE older aircraft owners may usually fit new mods after market, and they often don't have to pay much of the design costs associated. If these owners want something specific, the designers will do it, but they cannot do it for free. NB: the point I made earlier that most mods are specific to a single aircraft, so there is often no way of offsetting development costs by selling the mod on to other operators.
The Trislander is simply 2 Islander fuses joined together with a bigger wing and tail plane. It was considered innovative in its day, but I wonder why people would not add flexibility to their operations by using 2 Islanders. In the latter case, the purchase price would be less and the operating cost of having 3 more undercarriage legs and one more engine could be offset by carrying the 2 more passenger seats...just a thought?
I hope this adds to the conversation? I have enjoyed many an hour in many an Islander. While they are not a jet fighter, they are an aeroplane that serves a purpose. For people who operate Islanders there is usually no other choice. Not even a PAC750XL can go everywhere an Islander goes.
What antagonists are failing to understand is that the Islander was manufactured to fill a specific niche market. That is, multi-engine short duration legs over water or other inhospitable terrain, into and out of short, poorly prepared strips. The aeroplane design concept was very much in line with that other uniquely British product, the LandRover. Both are designed to be solid, like a brick outhouse, and to carry a tonne where others cannot go.
Over 1200 Islanders have been manufactured since 1965. In that time there have been many thousands of modifications. The aeroplanes have been largely custom built for individual owners, so that means there are effectively over 1200 different model Islanders. Most of the modifications relate to only one aircraft. The way the Type Certificate holder designs each mod means that most of the mods could go onto any aircraft, even as an after market addition. In choosing such a path, the design of the Islander has grown in an evolutionary manner, rather than revolutionary. Mods that pop the design up into another niche have been largely avoided because there are other aircraft already servicing those areas. Progress has meant that whilst every Islander is a little different, any Islander is recognisable and flyable by someone with Islander knowledge and experience. So far, no one has managed a design that better suits the Islanders niche than the original Britten Norman.
Specifically note that BN, as a small manufacturer has chosen the evolutionary design change through modification path because large mod or design changes are simply too expensive to be supported by the small volume of sales.
On different model designations, these are usually a change to the base line mod state. The latest model available is the BN2C-300. It comes with an additional row of passenger windows, 3 bladed scimitar props and some other improvements over the BN2B-20 mod state.
The 3 bladed Hartzell straight props have been available for a long time. These allow much smoother and quieter operations over the traditional 2 bladed props. The scimitar 3 bladed props allow a further reduction of noise levels by enabling the achievement of full power at 70 RPM less than the older models. With either mod now available, I am surprised any Islander has 2 bladed props.
The third row of passenger windows is a recent innovation whereby a properly incorporated and reinforced mod is added in a primary structure area of the fuselage. An older FAA STC third row window is not considered safe by the type certificate holder because the STC designer did not have factory backing or calculations when cutting the holes. IE in all probability, the older STC aircraft have written off fuselages...
The BN2T is a specific model option with an alternative engine. The idea being that not everybody can source avgas easily, and not everybody is happy with piston engine reliability. BN2T fuel flows are around 170 litres per hour versus say 120 litres per hour for a BN2B-20. With the same amount of fuel on board, clearly turbines will have slightly less range than the piston, but in most instances, people will not be using their Islanders outside the above mentioned niche. In that niche, turbine Islanders, due to the much lighter engines and the significantly higher maximum all up weight, can carry more into and out of the destination airfields.
In the surveillance or special mission role, turbine engines offer greater flexibility in terms of speed and altitude, and very long endurance/loiter times coupled with much smoother and quieter operations. IE the turbine engine is magnitudes quieter than the piston models.
On corrosion inspections, when operating at low level over water, or in inhospitable tropical climates, all aeroplanes will suffer from corrosion. BN introduced a service bulletin to ensure proper inspection, detection and treatment every other year for aeroplanes over 5 years old. Not performing the inspection ensures high levels of corrosion and associated expensive repairs. I suppose the point I am making is that the SB 190 was introduced because the aeroplanes live for so long in a corrosive environment. That doesn't mean the design is wrong or the metal is easily corroded, just that all aeroplanes will corrode and BN has an inspection to help minimise the problem and to reduce the cost of repairs. It is an ongoing project to have the SB absorbed into the normal maintenance manual.
I will not comment on ergonomics because custom built aircraft are designed to order, so you can hardly blame a designer for poor ergonomics if it is what the customer wanted.
In this modern day of product liability, whilst many people want to innovate and make suggestions for improvements, people must understand that the type certificate holder has to spend money on any re-design or modification. This can be prohibitively expensive for a small manufacturer. BN prides itself on satisfying the needs of customers, and most new modifications are therefore derived from new aircraft buyers. IE older aircraft owners may usually fit new mods after market, and they often don't have to pay much of the design costs associated. If these owners want something specific, the designers will do it, but they cannot do it for free. NB: the point I made earlier that most mods are specific to a single aircraft, so there is often no way of offsetting development costs by selling the mod on to other operators.
The Trislander is simply 2 Islander fuses joined together with a bigger wing and tail plane. It was considered innovative in its day, but I wonder why people would not add flexibility to their operations by using 2 Islanders. In the latter case, the purchase price would be less and the operating cost of having 3 more undercarriage legs and one more engine could be offset by carrying the 2 more passenger seats...just a thought?
I hope this adds to the conversation? I have enjoyed many an hour in many an Islander. While they are not a jet fighter, they are an aeroplane that serves a purpose. For people who operate Islanders there is usually no other choice. Not even a PAC750XL can go everywhere an Islander goes.
Last edited by DBTW; 17th May 2011 at 07:25. Reason: name change?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard a classic regarding Islanders the other day ...
Cathay jet inbound to Cairns. Islander outbound.
BN CEN...Cathay 123. Limit descent to 10 thousand, traffic is a BN2, 12 O' clock, 15 Nm, 9 thousand, do you have the traffic on TCAS?
Cathay 123 ... BN CEN, Negative on the TCAS, but don't worry, we can hear him coming!
Cathay jet inbound to Cairns. Islander outbound.
BN CEN...Cathay 123. Limit descent to 10 thousand, traffic is a BN2, 12 O' clock, 15 Nm, 9 thousand, do you have the traffic on TCAS?
Cathay 123 ... BN CEN, Negative on the TCAS, but don't worry, we can hear him coming!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BN CEN...Cathay 123. Limit descent to 10 thousand, traffic is a BN2, 12 O' clock, 15 Nm, 9 thousand, do you have the traffic on TCAS?
Cathay 123 ... BN CEN, Negative on the TCAS, but don't worry, we can hear him coming!
Cathay 123 ... BN CEN, Negative on the TCAS, but don't worry, we can hear him coming!
Love it!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to confirm an earlier posting.... The BN2 construction list does indeed show VH-AIA as being the first registered in Australia.
It was construction number 15 and was delivered on the 15 March 1968 to Island Airways. Later transferred to Tangalooma Air Taxis in 1978.
In 1979 it was re-registered H4-AAH with Solair. Then P2-ISR with Transniugini Airways in 1991.
It was written off on 24 December 1993 at Mount Hagen-Kagamuga Airport PNG.
It was construction number 15 and was delivered on the 15 March 1968 to Island Airways. Later transferred to Tangalooma Air Taxis in 1978.
In 1979 it was re-registered H4-AAH with Solair. Then P2-ISR with Transniugini Airways in 1991.
It was written off on 24 December 1993 at Mount Hagen-Kagamuga Airport PNG.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Wallace & Gromit. All these years since 1978 when I flew it,I'd always wondered if it was just urban myth about it being the first.
Sad that it was written off. My first twin.
Sad that it was written off. My first twin.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stationair8
Didn't the marketing people at BN, have a film made showing an Islander taking off with an engine shutdown and prop feathered?
But yeah I have heard rumour of such... still, it would need a fair bit of room going 'round in circles before getting fast enough for the rudder to became effective enough to hold her straight against the asymmetric thrust. If you ever do find that video, be sure to post it for us all to see!!!
Stationair8.
You're not thinking of the prototype Aero Commander are you?
In 1950, when the developers were working to satisfy CAA regulations for certification of the 500, they chose a novel method of demonstrating its single-engine safety and performance:
they removed one of the two-bladed propellers, secured it in the aft cabin, and flew from Bethany to Washington D.C. on one engine.
There they met with CAA personnel, then replaced the propeller and returned to Oklahoma in the conventional manner. The flight received nationwide coverage in the press
You're not thinking of the prototype Aero Commander are you?
In 1950, when the developers were working to satisfy CAA regulations for certification of the 500, they chose a novel method of demonstrating its single-engine safety and performance:
they removed one of the two-bladed propellers, secured it in the aft cabin, and flew from Bethany to Washington D.C. on one engine.
There they met with CAA personnel, then replaced the propeller and returned to Oklahoma in the conventional manner. The flight received nationwide coverage in the press
No it was definitely a BN-2.
The black and white photo was in a magazine called Aircraft which was published in the late 60's.
Didn't a BN-2 compete in the 1969 London to Sydney air race?
The black and white photo was in a magazine called Aircraft which was published in the late 60's.
Didn't a BN-2 compete in the 1969 London to Sydney air race?
Moderator
Stationair
Refer Post # 54 and # 56.
I suspect it started in the 1968 race, finishing first in 1969 and no one noticed...
Refer Post # 54 and # 56.
I suspect it started in the 1968 race, finishing first in 1969 and no one noticed...
My first job in aviation in '75 was to sit right seat on a Burnett Airways Trislander in Brisbane, because the rumour at the time was they couldn't make an autopilot work on the thing and the only way they could fly it IFR was to put a second bod on board who had at least a radio operators licence. I was actually over qualified as I also had a Private Pilots Licence.
I actually spent most of my time in flight trying to sync the engines by method (1) - fiddling with the blue pitch levers or method (2 - by using my fingernail to align the didlly little rpm indications so that at least the numbers were all the same.
We also went hi-tech in Burnett Airways and provided "inflight entertainment" (to alleviate the mind numbing engine noise) with a car cartridge player (clunky sort of cassette player) and it was my job to change the tapes over in flight and to make sure no one nicked off with the headsets at each turn around. Apart from removing the numerous sick bags...
Apart from using the wings to hang bits on like engines and undercart, for Bn-2 and BN-3 alike, the main purpose, according to another rumour, was to transmit the noise and vibration from the engines to the wings, which in turn caused the air molecules to vibrate apart and thereby cause a lower pressure which created lift for the purpose of flying. That is why the designer(s) didn't bother with aerodynamic refinements like dihedral on the wings.
They were dangerous too. Many the time I banged my head on the balance thing that hung off the ailerons and one day, shortly after landing and doing a casual walk around, I managed to get a 4th degree burn by draping my arm over the machine gun sized pitot tube that hung from the lower wing surface and which was still being heated because"someone" forgot to turn the pitot heater switch off.
It was also very possible, due to a tendency to be afflicted with carby ice, to have the engines stop at inopportune times. This was very tricky on take-off and we had a light to tell us if the fin engine had stopped vibrating the hell out of the fin structure and a nice Morris Minor type rear vision mirror attached to the windscreen post to provide backup confirmation. I can remember someone taking off from Hervey Bay one winter's morning and carrying out a full runway length "inspection" because the rear donk thought it a touch too cold and quit.
One other memory was taking off from Brisbane early one morning during an airline strike with a load of Courier Mail Newspapers and using all almost all off runway 22 to become airborne. We later discovered after a protracted climb, that the manifest of papers had been presented to us in a new fangled thing called kilograms and so we had about 2.2 times more on board then we had originally planned on.
I later flew the Islander and loved it - especially since it involved flying young females to Great Keppel island to "Get Wrecked" as the TAA advertising slogan put it. By the look of many that took the return trip after a week or so on the island, many achieved just that ......
And so to a few (rather poor quality) photos...
I actually spent most of my time in flight trying to sync the engines by method (1) - fiddling with the blue pitch levers or method (2 - by using my fingernail to align the didlly little rpm indications so that at least the numbers were all the same.
We also went hi-tech in Burnett Airways and provided "inflight entertainment" (to alleviate the mind numbing engine noise) with a car cartridge player (clunky sort of cassette player) and it was my job to change the tapes over in flight and to make sure no one nicked off with the headsets at each turn around. Apart from removing the numerous sick bags...
Apart from using the wings to hang bits on like engines and undercart, for Bn-2 and BN-3 alike, the main purpose, according to another rumour, was to transmit the noise and vibration from the engines to the wings, which in turn caused the air molecules to vibrate apart and thereby cause a lower pressure which created lift for the purpose of flying. That is why the designer(s) didn't bother with aerodynamic refinements like dihedral on the wings.
They were dangerous too. Many the time I banged my head on the balance thing that hung off the ailerons and one day, shortly after landing and doing a casual walk around, I managed to get a 4th degree burn by draping my arm over the machine gun sized pitot tube that hung from the lower wing surface and which was still being heated because"someone" forgot to turn the pitot heater switch off.
It was also very possible, due to a tendency to be afflicted with carby ice, to have the engines stop at inopportune times. This was very tricky on take-off and we had a light to tell us if the fin engine had stopped vibrating the hell out of the fin structure and a nice Morris Minor type rear vision mirror attached to the windscreen post to provide backup confirmation. I can remember someone taking off from Hervey Bay one winter's morning and carrying out a full runway length "inspection" because the rear donk thought it a touch too cold and quit.
One other memory was taking off from Brisbane early one morning during an airline strike with a load of Courier Mail Newspapers and using all almost all off runway 22 to become airborne. We later discovered after a protracted climb, that the manifest of papers had been presented to us in a new fangled thing called kilograms and so we had about 2.2 times more on board then we had originally planned on.
I later flew the Islander and loved it - especially since it involved flying young females to Great Keppel island to "Get Wrecked" as the TAA advertising slogan put it. By the look of many that took the return trip after a week or so on the island, many achieved just that ......
And so to a few (rather poor quality) photos...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another somewhat poor photo taken by a lot younger "Wallace and Grommit".
Taken in July 1965 featuring c/n 01, G-ATCT at Bembridge, Isle of Wight UK.
Note the early Continental engines (210hp I believe) which were removed very quickly and replaced with the 260hp Lycomings. Also note the thinner undercarriage leg fairings that were redesigned about a year later.
Taken in July 1965 featuring c/n 01, G-ATCT at Bembridge, Isle of Wight UK.
Note the early Continental engines (210hp I believe) which were removed very quickly and replaced with the 260hp Lycomings. Also note the thinner undercarriage leg fairings that were redesigned about a year later.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Givelda,here is VH-BSP in Bushies colours I would guess around late 1970s.I flew the Bushies Trislanders (sleds).They were excellent fuel to noise converters.
Thanks to B.Mckinnon for the piccy.
Thanks to B.Mckinnon for the piccy.
As well as VH-BSP, Burnett Airways also had BN-3, VH-BSG.
BSP was purchased to start a new Reg 203 run down to Stanthorpe and Warwick, but foggy winter weather and low loads soon sealed the fate of the company and then it went onto Bushies. So Burnett Airway became "Burntout Airways" when it shutdown in late 75 or early 76. The last I know of BSP, was in 2000 at Essenden.
I think BSG was lost near Canberra but I am unsure if that was so.
And the BN-2, I flew on "missions" to Great Keppel in 1979 was VH-SYU for Country Air, Rocky.
I recall during my endorsement by Peter Bad...y of Air Pacific fame, being shown max rate turns at just above the stall with one engine shut down.
It also flew quite well with the external aileron gust lock in, as I discovered one day.. but that is another story!
BSP was purchased to start a new Reg 203 run down to Stanthorpe and Warwick, but foggy winter weather and low loads soon sealed the fate of the company and then it went onto Bushies. So Burnett Airway became "Burntout Airways" when it shutdown in late 75 or early 76. The last I know of BSP, was in 2000 at Essenden.
I think BSG was lost near Canberra but I am unsure if that was so.
And the BN-2, I flew on "missions" to Great Keppel in 1979 was VH-SYU for Country Air, Rocky.
I recall during my endorsement by Peter Bad...y of Air Pacific fame, being shown max rate turns at just above the stall with one engine shut down.
It also flew quite well with the external aileron gust lock in, as I discovered one day.. but that is another story!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Givelda,good history. Bushies did operate an islander for a while VH-BPV. The Trislanders were VH-BSP,BPH,BGS (yes,correct rego,) & BPB.The 1st 3 regos were short nose models but BPB was the long nose (nose locker). There was only ever 2 long nose varieties on the Aust register. The other one was VH-EGU operated by Eagle Airways at Bankstown. It met a sad end one night over the southern highlands of NSW. From memory it picked up a lot of ice & gravity took over. A freighter with 2 pob.
Thanks Aye Ess,
I remember BGS for the very reason of it's similar rego. I used to see it and all the other Bushies aircraft on regular trips "up North" after I got a job with another company with a blue paint scheme a few years later.
And that was obviously the incident I remember regarding a Trislander being lost in NSW. I know they didn't fly all that well in cold wet, icy conditions - having to use full carby heat for the donks and no anti-icing gear on the wings, etc. didn't help if you were unfortunate enough to get into that situation
. Wonder what happened to BSG?
I remember BGS for the very reason of it's similar rego. I used to see it and all the other Bushies aircraft on regular trips "up North" after I got a job with another company with a blue paint scheme a few years later.
And that was obviously the incident I remember regarding a Trislander being lost in NSW. I know they didn't fly all that well in cold wet, icy conditions - having to use full carby heat for the donks and no anti-icing gear on the wings, etc. didn't help if you were unfortunate enough to get into that situation
. Wonder what happened to BSG?
I was lucky like Givelda to fly VH-SYU on The Keppel Island run with Country Air.....possibly the best BN 2 sector in OZ, 20 minute flight time, generally good weather and some of the most attractive passengers a Young Zlin could wish for, not to mention many free buffet lunches on the turnaround
