Thanks: 123
Likes: 178
Dislikes: 2
Yes. The dinghy launching was done by eyeball and hand, not from a rig or launcher. The demo people had loads of experience and could drop a dinghy within feet of a target. What was not in their experience was the sight of a door peeling off.....
Is it true that C250 was offered for a bargain price around the time C252/253 were delivered and the DoD turned it down?
Spark23 thanked for this post
Offers like that are nigh on impossible to accept for a government organisation unless the minister actually gives a **** about the department in question so the blame for it is firmly in the departmental/political domain.
Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.
GoneToTheCanner liked this post
Not so. The Air Corps (management both flying and support) did not want it because its instruments were not the same as 252/253. Thought it would confuse the poor pilots!!! They tried to make a case for a 3rd transport machine for the army, but they had no interest in one.
Tempest liked this post
pym thanked for this post
What would be the point? It was a single airframe, for freight only, with none of the sensors a maritime patrol aircraft needed. We didn't do enough parachuting to justify an aircraft of its size, at that time.
Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?
Spark23 disliked this post
The DF parachuting rate went up because 250 had parachute cables running the length of the cabin so that static-line jumps (stand up, hook up) could be carried out and the Rangers and para display team loved it because they could group together on the ramp and jump out as a formation or, in the case of the Rangers, jump while festooned with equipment. I took part in several flights as ramp and door opener for both parties and they were delighted with it, especially because it got them away from jumping out of 172s or helicopters. It also meant that larger groups could go up on each flight, so the jumpers got more jumps, from higher and got to do all the specialised jump stuff that 172s or helicopters couldn't deal with. Apart from that, the cargo Casa was brilliant for air ambulance as you could lift a patient on a trolley and as much ancilliary kit and medical team personnel as you liked. The most I saw was six, plus the patient. It was infinitely better than the King air because 240 had no cargo door and you had to take off the hand rail to get a stretcher on board, which meant that the patient had to be lifted off the stretcher, the gear then loaded and the patient refitted to the stretcher, which was slow, inconvenient and stressful. With 250, you simply walked up the ramp. It literally took a few minutes to get a stretcher aboard and tied down. With 252/3, the ramp is/was fitted with the dinghy launcher and the mission equipment made it much harder to get a patient on board. Also, it meant that we could move a group of mechs, tools and parts (or anything else for that matter) easily to anywhere in the island or it could act as a support aircraft for Air Corps aircraft going abroad. It was routine to go to Dublin Airport to get the other aircraft that had diverted there because of fog in Baldonnel. We could go over with chocks, a towbar, tools, intake blanks and our own oils and greases and get the aircraft parked up or made ready for flight and all it took was a ten-minute flight from Baldonnel, instead of an hour and a half by road. It was so very handy to have a flying Transit Van and it even performed maritime missions very early on. It really made a difference and it was a real disappointment that it wasn't kept. It did most, if not all of the Cessna, King Air and some of the heli utility jobs, just on a modestly bigger scale. As for pilot training, alluded to above, it was not so dramatically different from 252/3 in the cockpit that any pilot couldn't fly either and it certainly didn't demand a different type rating.
My apologies, my sarcastic tone does not reflect well in the media of print.
Returning 250 was a huge mistake, the justification given as per my post above, wich was mostly unconvincing. We had managed up to then with twin engined SKA200 with Mk1 eyeball, hand held camera and weather radar, and now we bemoan lack of sensors to justify returning an aircraft which was, in its standard state, still a huge step up from the SKA200.
I seem to remember they managed to squeeze an entire either Cessna 172 or a Warrior into the cargo hold, wings off, as a demonstration of its usefulness.
Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?
They had a little craze of seeing what they could fit in; pallets, Cessna hull, 26 jumpers and so on. Effectively, they realised how useful it was and the only constraint in Ireland was staying on paved runways because it was designed to operate off unsealed runways. I was just thinking how useful it would have been to be able to deploy tools and manpower to Donegal via Carrickfin Airport for the recent weather disasters.
Probably better for island relief than rotary wing too. Most of the islands have decent runways, from memory.
Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)