Early Christmas in Wellington

[Quickmarch 488]

Christmas has come early in Wellington. My AI pilot has been harping at me for more capacity, but it has to get into short, unimproved strips. Here's the answer: The DHC5 Buffalo. Delivered yesterday from it's Canadian build location, fresh paint, fresh everything.

 

 

ZK-BFO (Buffalo)

 

 

 

 

STOL

 

11,500 lb cargo capacity with an AI pilot in command.

 

[General]

DHC-5 Buffalo, known in the Canadian Forces as CC-115. originally designed as a tactical transport, now used for search & rescue operations (and by a certain NZ AH company).

 

atc_type=DEHAVILLAND

atc_model=DHC5

 

Length: 79ft

Wing Span: 96 ft

Ht: 28.7 ft

Weight:25,159 lb Empty

Max T/O Weight:49,201 lb

Power: 2 x 3133 shp GE C64

Max Cruise: 240 Kts TAS

Stall Speed 72 Kts Dirty

Max Ceiling: 31,000 ft

Service Ceiling: 22,000 ft

Range: 935 Naut Miles

Fuel: 840 USG 

 

 

Quote  : This aircraft is renowned for it's short field take-off & landing capability and , although it's not officially sanctioned, display pilots use reverse thrust before touchdown to make steep approaches & very short landings. Try it, but be prepared to disentangle yourself from the wreckage on your first few attempts. The trick is to manage the power, flaps and air brakes during a steep approach so that you have about 80 kts IAS when you cross the runway threshold in level flight at 10 feet altitude. Less height or speed and you'll land short in the weeds or stall, more height and speed and you'll probably 

overshoot short bush airstrips. Use reverse thrust immmediately on touch down, or a few seconds before if you're brave.

UnQuote

 

First flight - climbout (dirty) - Just sucking the wheels into the wells - look at that angle.

 

 

Turning Xwind

 

 

Setting up, slowing down - WoW! you should feel the flap drag!

 

 

Short final, ILS 34, NZWN. Target airspeed 90Kts. Let's see how short this one can land.

 

 

Turnoff (first available) from the threshold. Taxiway "9".

 

 

That ought to keep her happy. Down and off in less than 900 feet. Yes, I did hit the Beta range just over the threshold at about ten feet. Recommendation: don't do this with fragile loads. Came down like a rock, fast on the brakes and turned off at less than 20 nmph.

 

You know, at some airports and lightly loaded, I just might try landing ACROSS the runway. AI forbidden to try.

 

 

 

 

 

[brett 2,285]

Nice looking aquire March, enjoy the new money maker. Now if you can only keep the hires from dinging it the first few times out.

[allardjd 1,853]

Very nice, March. I really like Virtavia's Caribou, but in the final analysis, the turboprop-powered Buffalo is probably a better choice.

John

[Quickmarch 488]

Both I and the US Army agonized over the same question.

 

Quote from Wikipedia:

 

De Havilland's design, the DHC-5 Buffalo, was chosen as the winner of the United States Army competition in early 1963, with four DHC-5s, designated YAC-2 (later CV-7A and subsequently C-8A) ordered.^[2] The first of these aircraft made its maiden flight on 9 April 1964.^[3] All four aircraft were delivered in 1965, the Buffalo carrying nearly twice the payload as the Caribou while having better STOL performance. (Underlining is mine) The prototype CV-7A was exhibited by the manufacturer at the 1965 Paris Air Show wearing US Army markings. No further US orders followed, however, as at the start of 1967, inter-service politics lead to large fixed-wing transports being transferred to the United States Air Force,^[2] who considered themselves adequately equipped with the Fairchild Aircraft C-123 Provider.

 

Unquote

 

Note: You can't figure military reasoning. By 1967, the C-123 (which started life as a glider back in the early fifties) was a bit long in the tooth. It was, under a slightly different designation, the first USAF jet-powered transport.

 

In my case, I chose the DHC5 over the DHC4 strictly because I'm greedy (also my NZ AI is female and she wanted one).

 

Viking Air, a local holder of the STC is a friend of a friend, so I could have had a screaming deal if I'd had the ready cash.

[allardjd 1,853]

It's a stretch to say the C-123 was jet powered. The K model did have a pair of turbojets hung outboard of the radials for takeoff boost only. They were set up to burn avgas and drew fuel from the same tanks the radials used. They had inlet doors that kept them from windmilling in the slipstream when idle in normal flight.

John

[Andrew Godden 934]

March,

 

Very nice indeed.  After the DHC-4 'Caribou', the DHC-5 'Buffalo' is one of my favourite cargo aircraft.  I would say that is the PAD model as I don't know of any other 'Buffalo' ever having been modelled for FS9 / FSX.

 

For STOL capabilities, I still think the 'Caribou' beats the 'Buffalo', but then, I just love big thumping radial engines.  I've down a few hours more than I can remember in the 'Caribou' in the real world, and none of it was sedate cargo delivery.

 

Crash 'n Trash Cargo (my AH company is waiting for a 'Caribou' to come onto the used market.

 

Cheers

Andrew

[wain 879]

nice shots, and good bit of info, may look at one of these for the Ai..

Wayne

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Love Virtavia's Caribu, so this def. got me interested enough to download one last night and haul a load across NZ. Didn't attempt a STOL, but getting out of Milford sorta qualified AirHauler won't let my AI's use it there, as the model imports as "Medium" with runway restrictions. Does anyone know how to modify that in fsx.cfg, or elsewhere? There have been a couple planes I've encountered that I felt were unfairly disqualified for AI short field use.

 

I tried the reverse thrust on steep descent...it works lovely Never thought to try that before...assumed in RL it would rip props off or something unpleasant...this is NOT going to be helpful to get me out of my High and Fast approach habit, cept maybe the Fast part

 

[allardjd 1,853]

I don't think you can. It's based on weight and AH is unaware of any parameters that relate to STOL or take-off/landing performance.

John

[Quickmarch 488]

The RW Buffalo is rated STOL for it's carrying capacity at (roughly) 1000 feet of runway required. That's takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle. Landing is another matter altogether. You gotta watch these things as you can get it in - but you might have to truck it out.

 

Sort of like the Beaver. Been many a bush pilot in Canada who tied the a/c to a tree for the runup to full power (float planes) then leaned out and cut the rope.