Andovers

[beagle]

looks more like Whenuapai to me. The bike on the right, isn't that what they called a 'dragster'. They appeared the same time as the infamous chopper.

[vgp]

you may be correct - chopper had a longer banana seat or I may be thinking of a grifda.

[Dave Homewood]

I agree the concrete block hard apron looks like Whenuapai. Nice photo. I never realised before the red and white spinners on this first colour scheme, did they all have that or just this one?

[nige]

Y'know, thinking back to the late 70's when I was a kid, watching the Andovers from Wellington flying NZ Rail passengers and cars over the Cook Straight when the Interisland Ferry workers used to go on strike, it must have been an interesting experience for the public i.e. relatively short flight over the Straight compared to the 3 hour ferry crossing (and maybe some ex-Air Force pilots and ground crew might have some interesting stories to share on this forum)!

However what I've been wondering over the years, is that the Andovers and Hercs were critical to ensuring this operation went smoothly (must have been good practice for the Air Force too), and from a political dimension at the time with then PM Muldoon, it was obviously a way to get around the strikers (cue infamous "hah, hah, hah") but putting these politics aside, with the sell off of NZ Rail in the early 1990's, and the subsequent reforms to the union movements, I've been wondering whether one reason (maybe a minor reason) why the Andovers weren't replaced was there was no requirement to have such an aircraft to break/get around any Ferry strike action? Cue to present day, with the Govt buying back the Railways and Ferries, does the RNZAF have a means to re-prioritise obtaining a few medium range transporters for NZ/South Pacific troop transport with a vehicle ramp eg C27 or C295 etc? I notice there has been no requirement for a medium range transport aircraft in the last few Govt Long Term Development Plans, despite the recent/current needs to deploy into Polynesia and Melanesia etc.

[rocco]

Personally, I had hope that the "short and medium air patrol" project would eventuate into something like a small purchase of CN-295s. Pallet-based installation of the basic maritime patrol kit (I'm guessing probably just a simple search radar and an optical turret) would let them do double duty in as a light-medium tactical transport.

But I'm also of the view that the RNZAF or the early-1980s, without the strke wing, would be an almost ideal size for today's airforce. Same number of airframes of course,just replaced wth something newer ;D

[sniff]

That's the "as received" airframe and colour scheme from the RAF with only NZ tail numbers and roundels. They even smelled like camel shite when they arrived!
My pick would be Auckland 1977/78, judging by the air stairs. I first flew 24 on 31 Dec 77.

[stu]

Jan 12, 2008 6:57:12 GMT 12 rotoruian said:

I am surprised with all the postes here that no one has posted any pictures.

.... or interiors

The driving department of NZ7629 at Whenuapai some time pre-1998 (can't remember the exact date I took it ).



Cheers,
Stu

[tbf25o4]

The cockpit looks exactly like the one on my flight sim! Have clocked up over 120 hours of flight sim flying with the excellent FS2004 Andover with RNZAF markings!

Paul

[tbf25o4]

It is interesting to talk to Sir Richard Bolt who organised the purchase of the 10 Andovers at bargin basement prices over a meal with his RAF counterpart when Sir Richard was Chief of Air Staff.
As an "interim" replacement for the Bristol Freighters the Andovers served 22 years before they were retired!

[nige]

May 12, 2008 16:22:10 GMT 12 tbf25o4 said:

It is interesting to talk to Sir Richard Bolt who organised the purchase of the 10 Andovers at bargin basement prices over a meal with his RAF counterpart when Sir Richard was Chief of Air Staff.
As an "interim" replacement for the Bristol Freighters the Andovers served 22 years before they were retired!

Wow, what did the RNZAF have in mind to ultimately replace the Bristol Freighters and "interim" Andovers then, and when were they wanting to do so? Did the 727 acquisitions in 1981 affect these replacement plans (i.e. cancel them)? Or did the Andovers turn out to be much better than expected and thus there was no need to replace them?

[beagle]

I remember they were going to replace the herks with a bigger number, but with the arrival of the vomit comet, and the acceptabilty of the Andover in it's missions, futher replacements were squashed.

[Dave Homewood]

May 13, 2008 12:50:47 GMT 12 beagle said:

I remember they were going to replace the herks with a bigger number, but with the arrival of the vomit comet, and the acceptabilty of the Andover in it's missions, futher replacements were squashed.

They were possibly giving some thought towards purchasing more Hercules after the Andover began to retire too. This is from page 5 of the January 1996 edition of RNZAF News (edited by Sqn Ldr Paul Harrison):

Non-Binding Option for Hercules Announced
CASGRAM December 1995

"The Minister of Defence has announced that New Zealand has arranged a non-binding option to buy up to eight C-130J Hercules under a contract between Australian Commonwealth and Lockheed Martin.
Under the contract, the RAAF will purchase 12 new Hercules to replace its E models, at a cost of $A900.0million over five years, starting in 1997. The contract also gives the RAAF the option to acquire a further 24 Hercules, and new Zealand up to eight for the RNZAF. Included in the New Zealand option are spares and support equipment, an esculation formula to cover production costs and provision for New Zealand industry involvement in supporting the aircraft through their working lives.
I must emphasise to you that this is not a decision by the Government to buy the new Hercules. Establishing the options in this manner defines the basis of the price that New Zealand could expect to pay for new C-130J aircraft when it becomes necessary to replace our H models sometime after 2000. The decision on when to replace, how many aircraft and how they are to be acquired, will be made after coinsiderable analysis by defence and the Government. However, the Government's approval to arrange for the option under the RAAF contract acknowledges not only the valuable role played by the Hercules in meeting defence outputs, but also the age of the current fleet."

[sniff]

My penny's worth (although I haven't heard it discussed) is that the RNZAF will wait and see how the A400 shapes up before it makes a final heavylift decision. The current upgrade buys that time and perhaps gives a bit of resale value to what were effectively the first H-models produced.

Number of frames is always an issue. If you assume one will always be on a Depot servicing and another on Intermediate servicing, it only leaves three frames to do whatever else needs to be done. A purchase of six is a minimum if you consider the deployment of a Company sized unit with it's support equipment - the larger deployment, including LAV's, would arrive later on Canterbury if needed.

[beagle]

Yep, heard the same thing from someone that the A400 is top on 40 Sqn's wish list. Mind you 6 of these might be going over the top cost wise, then again having say 3-4 is pretty ueless.

[avenger]

AVM Larry Seigert mentioned early in this thread, sadly now deceased, 17 Sept 2007 @ Hutt Hospital. Aged 84. (Herald)
George Oldfield, commenced an aviation career as a Signaller and spent time on the Nav training flight at WG.

[tbf25o4]

The saga of the C130J's is interesting in that the RNZAF's inability to convince the politicians to purchase the aircraft at the time was actually a blessing as the RAAF C130J's were plagued with problems during their initial service which would have been critical to us with a smaller fleet.
My bet is that if anything replaces the C130 in RNZAF service it may well be leased C17's to remain compatible with the Australians. As I understand it the 400's dual rail system may not be compatible with the standard US system which we use (A La RAF C130s!)

[beagle]

You would think that the nations that are looking at purchasing th A400, will use them as C130 replacements, then Airbus would fit the same dual rail system.
Everything is more or less standardised on that.
Would I be right in saying that the C17 and C5 have the same dual rail system, as used on the C130 but 2 systems side by side.
I think the C17's might be abit more modern but still take the same size.
If te A400's system is designed for the same size as the C130 pallet then it should be ok.

[Dave Homewood]

Would a C-17 actually fit in any of the RNZAF hangars? Or would new huge ones need to be constructed?

[beagle]

a big no and a definate yes, unless you wanted to spend dome money modifying the hangar. If you took the whole front off then maybe but the roof would probably fall in.
and the defense bean counters would not like that.
Not sure if they have new purpose built facilities at Amberly as yet or not. I know from when i was there in the 90's, there was nothing big enough.

[FlyNavy]

A 4Mb PDF is available for download detailing all the works required Australia wide for the C-17:

www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pwc/c17/subs/sub1.pdf (4Mb)

Here is some of the RAAF Amberley requirements:
"RAAF Base Amberley
24. The proposed RAAF Base Amberley works comprises five major project elements, including
working accommodation for No. 36 Squadron, Air Movements for Passengers and Cargo
preparation and handling, Warehousing (C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership), C-17
Simulator Facilities, and airfield pavements for the C-17 fleet. The proposed works (with the
exception of the simulator) are located immediately north of the new No. 33 Squadron facilities and
apron and will create an Air Lift precinct at RAAF Base Amberley. The simulator will be sited
adjacent to the new Multi-Role Tanker Transport (KC-30B) simulator to create a new Simulator
precinct. A site plan of the proposed works is at Attachment 2.
25. The proposed works for the home base, RAAF Amberley includes:
a. Working Accommodation. Construction of a new combined headquarters building for No.
36 Squadron personnel (including aircrew, administration, operations and maintenance
personnel) and office accommodation for the C-17 logistic management unit and the
Contract Management Office – C-17 Global Support Program; new and refurbished
specialist equipment and aircraft workshop and Squadron storage space; new shelters for the C-17 and Air Movements Ground Support Equipment
b. Air Movements and Cargo Preparation. Construction of a new Air Movements Terminal
and cargo hangar including office accommodation, passenger lounges, specialist cargo
preparation equipment and cargo storage and a new vehicle wash bay compliant with
Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) standards to wash vehicles returning from
overseas deployment;
c. Warehousing. Construction of a new warehouse for storage and distribution of C-17 aircraft
spares and equipment;
d. C-17 Simulator. Construction of a new C-17 Simulator facility to accommodate a full
motion flight simulator, technical training devices, office accommodation for Boeing staff,
maintenance areas and training class rooms;
e. Aircraft Pavements. A new aircraft parking apron capable of supporting four C-17 aircraft
is proposed. The apron will provide for taxi-through parking and hydrant refuelling.
Widened taxiways are required to allow the C-17 aircraft to transit the airfield without
backtracking on the runway. A new apron and supporting taxiway extension to allow
loading of explosive ordnance cargo is also proposed.
26. Drawings of the proposed home base works at RAAF Base Amberley are at Attachments 3 - 14."