Twotter Replacement.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North East England
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twotter Replacement.
Hi, if this is the wrong forum forgive me. Couldn't think of anywhere else to put it.
A question for you.
Twin Otters are well known for their outstanding STOL capabilities, described somewhere recently as an airborne Jeep.
But they stopped building them in 1988.
What is out there new or projected to replace it?
Cheers
Dan
A question for you.
Twin Otters are well known for their outstanding STOL capabilities, described somewhere recently as an airborne Jeep.
But they stopped building them in 1988.
What is out there new or projected to replace it?
Cheers
Dan
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing is being produced that can replace the Twin Otter. Everytime a Twin Otter is destroyed, for whatever reason, the price of Twin Otters globally increases. If I knew how to build and produce an aircraft that could perform and be as reliable as the Twin Otter, I would be richer than Bill Gates. The problem is that there is not a huge demand for an aircraft like the Twin Otter, because there is no Vietnam war on, or anything of that nature, where governments such as the US, can afford to order large amounts of these types of aircraft. Hence the Twin Otter is a by product of the Vietnam war.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I give you the M28 from PZL (actually a much modded An28). The sucker will do everything a Twotter will do and carry more payload. This is a seriously capable aircraft (it's also seriously ugly but you can't have everything!)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a guy a few years ago in Canada who had a plan to start building them again but it never went anywhere. Perhaps someone could buy the rights from Bombardier and make them in China like Sikorsky did with some of it's helicopters:
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,,c...ti1842,00.html
http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,,c...ti1842,00.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North East England
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your replies guys.
I am interested in the Vietnam angle. Was it used by the US military there? As what, para drop, ressuply? A kind of mini Herc?
Cheers
I am interested in the Vietnam angle. Was it used by the US military there? As what, para drop, ressuply? A kind of mini Herc?
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we're confusing the Otter with the Caribou DHC-4, which was used in Vietnam:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo.../DHC4CARI.html
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo.../DHC4CARI.html
I think Bell Man should maybe stick to helicopter stories. Maybe he was thinking about Bells, not D-H's. 
However, the US military did, and indeed does, still operate the Twin Otter as the UV-18A. They are currently used as jump ships at the Air Force academy, after a gentle life with the Alaska National Guard - and they were beautiful, low time, ships.
As a cautionary tale, some genius in the Guard, decided to run a replacement programme scenario, without ever considering funding the replacement for probably the best suited aircraft they could ever operate. As a result, the aircraft were grabbed by the academy, and the AK Guard got their replacement aircraft - the fabulous C-23B Sherpa (aka - the SHED). Just mentioning the loss of the Twotters to a guard pilot will make them cry!
Interesting side story on the fate of the US military twotter programme.
In 2000 a quick Reaction audit was requested by the USPFO on the transfer of 1.18 million dollars of UV-18 Fixed Wing aircraft parts to the Navy in exchange for the Navy's purchase and delivery of UH-60 helicopter fuel tanks. The various agreements negotiated and transfer actions taken, were performed outside normal operating procedures, without USPFO approval.
Agreements were not negotiated IAW DODI 4000.19 and NGR 5-2. Disposition procedures in AR 710-2 were not followed and a contracting officer was not used to obtain the Fuel tanks IAW the FAR.
The UV-18 parts were given to an agent of the Navy without following standard procedures, obtaining proper approvals, or using any documentation for the disposition. The UH-60 fuel tanks were also not certified by the Army as air worthy.
In one week the Navy's agent created a company, loaded the parts on a truck, sold $650K of the parts to a company in Canada, and purchased a new airplane with the proceeds.
As a result, the ARNG lost control and accountability for the parts, missed out on a reimbursable opportunity and created numerous legal issues that are currently being investigated by CID and DCIS. The final audit product provided investigators and command with a tool for focusing an investigation, addressing regulatory violations and avoiding similar situations in the future.
However, the US military did, and indeed does, still operate the Twin Otter as the UV-18A. They are currently used as jump ships at the Air Force academy, after a gentle life with the Alaska National Guard - and they were beautiful, low time, ships.
As a cautionary tale, some genius in the Guard, decided to run a replacement programme scenario, without ever considering funding the replacement for probably the best suited aircraft they could ever operate. As a result, the aircraft were grabbed by the academy, and the AK Guard got their replacement aircraft - the fabulous C-23B Sherpa (aka - the SHED). Just mentioning the loss of the Twotters to a guard pilot will make them cry!
Interesting side story on the fate of the US military twotter programme.
In 2000 a quick Reaction audit was requested by the USPFO on the transfer of 1.18 million dollars of UV-18 Fixed Wing aircraft parts to the Navy in exchange for the Navy's purchase and delivery of UH-60 helicopter fuel tanks. The various agreements negotiated and transfer actions taken, were performed outside normal operating procedures, without USPFO approval.
Agreements were not negotiated IAW DODI 4000.19 and NGR 5-2. Disposition procedures in AR 710-2 were not followed and a contracting officer was not used to obtain the Fuel tanks IAW the FAR.
The UV-18 parts were given to an agent of the Navy without following standard procedures, obtaining proper approvals, or using any documentation for the disposition. The UH-60 fuel tanks were also not certified by the Army as air worthy.
In one week the Navy's agent created a company, loaded the parts on a truck, sold $650K of the parts to a company in Canada, and purchased a new airplane with the proceeds.
As a result, the ARNG lost control and accountability for the parts, missed out on a reimbursable opportunity and created numerous legal issues that are currently being investigated by CID and DCIS. The final audit product provided investigators and command with a tool for focusing an investigation, addressing regulatory violations and avoiding similar situations in the future.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lancashire, England
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw one at Fort Lauderdale Executive in Jan this year.
I was taking a few shots of a lovely Grumman Mallard and was walking past an exec jet hangar, when in the back I noticed a Twotter. I saw a lady working in the hangar and asked if it was OK to take a shot of it and she said no problem. Next thing a bloke shouted 'No photo's of that aircraft! I said I'd asked and been authorised but he said you can shoot anything on the field apart from that one!
It was in very basic US colours and displayed the serial in a most odd way. It was something like 82-23-835 and was riddled with antenna!
Lovely aircraft
Regards
Reggie AKA The Cameraman
I was taking a few shots of a lovely Grumman Mallard and was walking past an exec jet hangar, when in the back I noticed a Twotter. I saw a lady working in the hangar and asked if it was OK to take a shot of it and she said no problem. Next thing a bloke shouted 'No photo's of that aircraft! I said I'd asked and been authorised but he said you can shoot anything on the field apart from that one!
It was in very basic US colours and displayed the serial in a most odd way. It was something like 82-23-835 and was riddled with antenna!
Lovely aircraft
Regards
Reggie AKA The Cameraman
