|
|
Post by phil82 on Aug 28, 2006 9:53:09 GMT 12
In my Saturday's Dom, there was an interview with the current Chief of Air Force, AVM Lintott, which included a comment that, due to the modernisation of the C130 and P3 over the next few year which will convert them all to "glass cockpits", there will be a need to replace the Beechcraft with something much more moden, I.E, with a glass cockpit!
I wonder with what, as the Beechcraft itself is leased!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 28, 2006 12:24:10 GMT 12
The plans are to buy our own, possibly more Kingairs. That was about a year ago though, so who knows what the current thinking is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 28, 2006 12:36:22 GMT 12
the requirement for a twin engine turboproprop trainer with a glass cockpit would be a difficult one to fill. I cant think of many in current or recent production - maybe the later Jetstreams? It may be better to get the retrofit kits available for the King Airs and get them installed - whether the aircraft were leased or owned by the RNZAF would be a separate issue. In terms of training, the king airs are pretty good - I dont think that larger aircraft would be purchased solely on the gounds of the training requirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 28, 2006 12:39:39 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Aug 28, 2006 13:51:46 GMT 12
The King Airs currently in RNZAF use are all secondhand airframes, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 28, 2006 14:20:27 GMT 12
Yes all the current B200s are second airframes, but unlike heavy jets there are very few "lifed" airframe components so there providing they are well maintained there shouldnt be any "aging airframe" issues for quite some time. All the machines were extensively upgraded with the raisbeck kits etc before they left the USA and all cockpits and equipment fits were standardised, so really being second hand aircraft isnt an issue. There is no real reason to replace the airframes as the Collins Proline instrument systems (as installed in new B350s) can be retrofitted for comparitively little cost (as opposed to buying new aircraft)
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Aug 28, 2006 18:21:31 GMT 12
Last I heard one of the Kingairs was perminantly grounded due to serious fatigue problems. They were certainly well used airframes by the time we got our hands on them. The people who work on them don't speak very highly of them. There was also an early problem with the Avionics fit in each airframe being totally different - that was certainly the case for the original 3 aircraft but maybe they have standardised them all by now. Pilots had to be signed out on each individual airframe in the early days as none of them had the same avionics kit! This also made having enough spare parts available a problem as nothing was inter-changeable (in the Nav/Comm kit) between airframes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Aug 28, 2006 19:18:35 GMT 12
I was working in the supply dept at Aeromotive at the time, and I know that there was a hiccup early in the piece that the 3 aircraft orginally supplied by Aeromotive and Dennis Thompson International did have to be returned to USA for standardisation - that should have been done beforehand, but there was pressure to get them into NZ ( I wont say where that pressure came from) One aircraft was not accepted but that was due to its previous use as a drugs courier and subsequent questions about the lifed items (this may be where the "grounded KingAir" report comes from, but I havent been in touch with the Aeromotive operation for a while) In theory, as I mentioned there are very few airframe items with a finite life, and this is where light airliners have an advantage over heavyweight machines, however, that does not mean fatigue related issues do not occur - it comes down to the maintenance programme to inspect and ensure that the components remain in suitable condition. The biggest problems with the King Airs is the owner / Leassor in this case. cant go into details, but in my opinion, the short term gains that come with this arrangement will cause problems downstream. The aircraft type, and in most cases the individual aircraft are actually O.K, its how the operation is structured and the subtle effects of that, that is giving them a bad rap.
|
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Aug 28, 2006 20:14:51 GMT 12
That all sounds pretty messy, I didnt realise that the aircraft may have been grounded.
Must be a big step up from one of those aircraft to a C130 or P3
|
|
