mnewbery Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/08/18/qantas-bids-to-continue-vital-lord-howe-island-service/ Quote (...) the Q200s are no longer being built, and as planes, even very good planes, age and accumulate pressurisation cycles and all of the other stresses on their aluminium airframes, they become increasingly costly to maintain as safe and reliable. End quote Remember the Beech 1900 story recently? Lord Howe Island depends on the viability of a large operator such as QANTAS being able to economically keep this aircraft type in charter AND fly with safety foremost. The story linked above suggests that no other operator will or can provide the same safety emphasis and outcomes. Why then, did QANTAS quietly remove the life rafts from the types servicing this destination (in accordance with a CASA requirement relaxation)? Would other operators do the same? Or would they just not bother bidding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David C Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Yes , Qantas may have a bit of a problem here looking for a Dash 8-200 replacement . There's not a lot of 30-40 seaters that can operate into 880M strips , the one that springs to mind may be the Dornier328 . This has almost the same field length performance as the Dash but at a reduced payload . The other alternative would be to downsize the aircraft, then the choice of aircraft is much larger . An opening for the new manufactured Nomad ? ... Dave C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 Nomad - not this time. The Dash 8-200 needs to fly 425 nm plus taxying & holding. It can do 900nm+ one way (source Wikipedia). So it can fly there and back without landing ... The alternate to YLHI is the place you started at, YSSY. The nomad can do 580nm one way with full fuel, one life raft and only a few passengers. Dornier Sea Star? That would be enough of a reason to get me to go the Lord Howe Island! http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/turboprops/flying-boat-back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted August 19, 2012 Author Share Posted August 19, 2012 Dornier Sea Star TODR = 410m (No really, that's to 50 feet on land) Plus it can land on water Dornier 328JET TODR = 935m Embraced ERJ 135 TODR = 1760m YLHI TODA = 886m (ERSA) http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Fairchild-Dornier-328JET/462 http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Embraer-ERJ-135/120 Go the Sea Star! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Dornier Seastar image by Oliver Grzimek copied from Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License The Dornier Seastar on the Wolfgangsee in Austria. Image by Rschider copied from Wikipedia and is in the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I see Airliners has some nice images as well, some in flight and others giving a good view of the open hatches etc.. Airborne photos with the gear up really shows up some complex shapes in the hull. That Flyingmag pilot report linked above is really interesting reading. Cheers, Willie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 C27J Spartan with seats in it? TODR = 580m @ MTOW, less for landing, plus it can take an 11 Tonne payload or fly 1000 nm with a 10 tonne payload. Translates to 9.1 Clive Palmers in the new measurement system. In flight catering might be a bit BYO, plus there are no windows. On the upside you could start your holiday at Lord Howe with a complimentary skydive before meeting your luggage on the ground. Check the seating out here: http://c-27j.ca/c-27j-features-and-capabilities I hear the USA military have a few spare of these... :D plus they are made by the same people who brought you bits of the ATR42/72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David C Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I like that idea ... Could probably throw in the odd barrel roll or two as well .. Dave C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 Dornier Do-228NG Manufatured under licence by HAL in India? That would do it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_228 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 What about the PZL M28? Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004[3] General characteristics Crew: 2 Capacity: 19 passengers Payload: 2,000 kg (4,409 lb) Length: 13.10 m (42 ft 11¾ in) Wingspan: 22.06 m (72 ft 4½ in) Height: 4.90 m (16 ft 1 in) Wing area: 39.72 m² (427.5 ft²) Empty weight: 4,100 kg (9,309 lb) Max. takeoff weight: 7,500 kg (16,534 lb) Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-65B turboprops, 820 kW (1,100 shp) each Performance Maximum speed: 355 km/h (191 knots, 220 mph) Cruise speed: 270 km/h (146 knots, 168 mph) at 3,000 m (9,840 ft) (econ cruise) Stall speed: 123 km/h (67 knots, 77 mph) (flaps up) Range: 1,500 km (809 nmi, 932 mi) with max fuel Endurance: 6 hr 12 min Service ceiling: 7,620 m (25,000 ft) Rate of climb: 11 m/s (2,165 ft/min) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 What about the PZL M28? Range is a bit tight (for YSSY-YLHI), might need to bump a passenger or two for the life raft as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avi8tr Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 An interesting point about the rafts. The liferafts aren't required because it's just outside the minimum distance that mandates their use. They lose a number of seats because the have to go on the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 QANTAS used to have life rafts. Under CAO 20.11 part 5.2.1.1 they took them out because they could. Not because it made sense. Would you prefer a life raft to be there given you could be in the drink 200nm from land at night and bloody miles from the nearest shipping lane? http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/11/08/why-should-lord-howe-air-travellers-be-at-greater-risk-drowning-in-a-ditching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now