# Utilicraft - possible Twin Otter replacement?, split from Re: Fixed-wing SAR replacement



## Lineman (3 Jul 2006)

G'day to all, 
While browsing around I found the Utilicraft site. I would like to hear your opinions on whether this aircraft has any potential for the replacement of the Twin otter.
http://www.utilicraft.com/index2.htm
It might not be flying yet but after reading all your discussions here it seems to have a quite a few points you're looking for, rear ramp, short take-off etc.
Thanks, back to being an interested spectator.


----------



## Armymatters (3 Jul 2006)

Lineman said:
			
		

> G'day to all,
> While browsing around I found the Utilicraft site. I would like to hear your opinions on whether this aircraft has any potential for the replacement of the Twin otter.
> http://www.utilicraft.com/index2.htm
> It might not be flying yet but after reading all your discussions here it seems to have a quite a few points you're looking for, rear ramp, short take-off etc.
> Thanks, back to being an interested spectator.



Twin Otter is going back into production, so that issue is moot.

If you haven't figured it out, the C-27J Spartan is the favourite for the FWSAR project, but the design does have some bus in it that needs work.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jul 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Twin Otter is going back into production, so that issue is moot.
> 
> If you haven't figured it out, the C-27J Spartan is the favourite for the FWSAR project, but the design does have some bus in it that needs work.



Anything not built by Airbus or advocated by CASR has issues for you so no surprise there.


----------



## Armymatters (3 Jul 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Anything not built by Airbus or advocated by CASR has issues for you so no surprise there.



On the contrary, I don't think the EADS/CASA airplane and proposal is any good. They have the inferior airplane, and they have the the balls to dictate to us domestic policy on how to base these birds. The Lockheed/Alenia proposal makes more sense.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jul 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> On the contrary, I don't think the EADS/CASA airplane and proposal is any good. They have the inferior airplane, and they have the the balls to dictate to us domestic policy on how to base these birds. The Lockheed/Alenia proposal makes more sense.



I stand by my comments.

My opinion of you is well established, supported by others and unlikely to change.  Its is also reinforced every time you post.


----------



## Lineman (4 Jul 2006)

Don't mean to get in between two fine gentlemen and their disagreement but I was just looking for an opinion on the Utilicraft and its potential use in the CF.


----------



## Skaha (6 Jul 2006)

Looks very big, way bigger than a "Dash 6" T'wotter

Nose gear looks weak and the long body in front of the wing spar would be a very suspect design for any rough landings.

STOL capability is poor.  Good Twotter jockey can get airborne in 600ft or less and can land in less than 200 - especially if you disable the weight on landing gear switch that prevents selecting reverse prop while in flight.

This is an idea that won't go anywhere . . .  can't figure any market for it, certainly not military


----------



## Zoomie (6 Jul 2006)

Skaha said:
			
		

> STOL capability is poor.  Good Twotter jockey can get airborne in 600ft or less and can land in less than 200 - especially if you disable the weight on landing gear switch that prevents selecting reverse prop while in flight.



Why would you want to land in a place with only 200' of room? There is no chance in hell of taking off again.

The CF is not looking to replace its Twotter fleet with another identical product - the idea of King Air 200's has been thrown around.  This Utilicraft certainly has the bulk load capability - just concerned about its range, IFR alternates up north are usually far apart.


----------



## Spencer100 (6 Jul 2006)

This looks like just a "paper" airplane.  I do not think the CF would like to be the miltary launch customer and all the problem that means.  


Being in the comercial logsitics business I like the idea of a good feeder aircraft.  Time and money can be saved unloading and loading the "cans".  Interesting plane if they can get it built.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (6 Jul 2006)

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here.  Put aside the obvious arguments about old aircraft designs versus more modern and focus on the intended designed role of the aircraft. The Twin Otter is probably the epitome of design of a large "bush plane". It was intended to go where support services were few and to return safely.  It was rugged and carried a good sized load.  It is very much a Canadian aircraft designed with the perspective of the remote areas of this country.  That is why it is still sought after to work in remote areas around the world.  Think of it as a large aerial all wheel drive. say a Unimog.

The Utilicraft is designed to carry containerized freight from smaller airports to larger hubs.  The cockpit is pressurized but the cargo hold is not, so that weather and mountains are more cheaply avoided.  IMHO, it's intended customer is more likely to be FEDEX than CF.  Think of it as a delivery van.


----------



## Lineman (6 Jul 2006)

Thanks Gents, I thought it had some interesting points with its cargo capabilities and rear ramp but there's obviously much more to the Otter than I though. Again thanks for the inside perspective.


----------



## Skaha (7 Jul 2006)

" Why would you want to land in a place with only 200' of room? There is no chance in hell of taking off again."

happens a lot in civvy arctic Twotter ops.

Land on the island, slight uphill clearing where the bigger rocks have been moved.  Reverse thrust engaged in the flare, run up hill,  rudder kick turn at the very end.  Lock the brakes.  Unload the whatever was on board . . couple of 45's of camp gas, load up a very small return load.  Max power, release brakes, down hill run and take off over the water.

Better than coffee.


----------



## Zoomie (8 Jul 2006)

That sounds like a load of fun - I must try it out some day in the DHC-5.


----------



## Jantor (8 Jul 2006)

Has anybody looked at replacing the Twotters with the CASA C-212 Aviocar? The Australians are using that aircraft in Antarctica with skis and I heard that private operators have used it up north as well. That rear ramp could come in handy for loading and unloading things like Ski-doos, ATV's and barrels of fuel. What do you folks think?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2006)

You may remember the aircraft and crew who flew down to Antarctica twice from Canada on Rescue missions to the Scientific Installations a couple of years ago.  If the Australian CASA C-212 Aviocar is so good, why didn't they fly those missions?  Australia is so much closer than BC.


----------



## Jantor (8 Jul 2006)

The Australians just got them. This is their first year operating them, I think.


----------

