So where is the cargo door on that pic of VWO ? not the same as the pic in post #20. Is it to be done in Oz?

You can see the door frame between the last cabin window and the left engine.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/11/rfds-gets-first-pilatus-pc-24/

This article shows the cargo door and one of the configurations that the stretchers can be in.

Rio Tinto have a big chunk invested in this machine, without their $$$$ this would not have happened!
Be interesting to see how it performs in the real world, not just on paper for feel good' commercial results:-)

I looked into one (Nextant) when I was at Careflight in DN recently, too small, over wing refueling, marginal door access in the Aeromed role, no APU & they don't have the range with a decent payload. Every A/C in the Aeromed role is a trade off. The PC's & B200/350's are great machines but they have their limitations (No APU, a huge disadvantage!) as does the Nextant & the Lear's, the latter LR45 has a lot going for it & is used extensively world wide in that role so personally is the pick of the bunch for most cases.

Folks,
Many of you seem to forget that this company has a long history of building very rugged aircraft, remember the Porter and Turbo-Porter.
What makes some of you think it will not perform to specification, including unsealed runways, all their previous aircraft have a good service record.
Or do you have an inability to not knock something new.
Tootle pip!!

Tonight's Ch 7 news.....one for JT, and one for BRM. (BME)

Cheers

From Wiki - I guess they are just using data to obtain dubious speed figures. Was it on flight tracker for the ferry?

During EBACE 2016, it was commented that the program was on track and test flights had been free of surprises; during a transatlantic crossing to the US, P02 had achieved a cruise speed in excess of 800 km/hr (432 kt.), which was better than expected.

The three prototypes flew 2205 hours including icing conditions and very hot temperatures, outside its flight envelope, bird strikes, structural stress tests and noise tests before it received EASA and FAA type certification on 7 December 2017. Its performance goals were met or exceeded, like its maximum speed raised from 425 to 440 knots (787 to 815 km/h).

I don't understand why they would have one at Broome. The Broome basing would not be cheap.

I cannot see what advantages the Broome basing would bring. Surely, every single job that the Broome aircraft would do, could be done by a Perth/Jandakot aircraft - for the exact same response times.

Nah, still can't see it, Alice. All international jobs would be a secondary retrievals, meaning that response time is not critical. And if those patients were taken to Perth, then there definitely would be nothing gained at all.

Broome to the Rio Tinto mines faster?

Does the fog still hit Jandakot hard?

They have a base in Broome, so I guess it has advantages.

If that was the logic, it would be based at Port Hedland.

Some minor advantages, sure, but now must provide another 4 or so houses for the jet pilots. Not cheap.

4 houses in Port Headland would get you 5 in Broome for the same $'s or less.
You would have a better chance attracting and retaining staff at Broome than the Port.

Probably true, but still much more expensive than basing it in Perth.

When I worked for the RFDS WA Section many moons ago, I think we had 4 or 5 bases other than Jandakot. Of the 5 they have now only Meka and the Port are the same. Some of the others were covered by the Goldfields section and pretty sure Broome came under the Victorian section back then.

So for much of the RFDS operational history shows they operate from bases - so when a new type is implemented, I don't see why the operation now should operate from a single base when using multiple bases has proved effective.

Maybe not all patients in the Pilbara/Kimberley get transferred to Perth? There must be a reason why a base was recently created at Broome...