control locks were still locked when the aircraft took off ( Video-Footage )

[[email protected]]

An excellent reminder that there really are good reasons to do a
thorough preflight and to make sure the controls are free. This
happened just north of Winnipeg, and the aircraft was the first version
with PT-6-67 Turboprops. The Canadian DOT concluded that the control
locks were still locked when the aircraft took off.
http://www.jumpingpixels.com/turboprops.html

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:

>An excellent reminder that there really are good reasons to do a
>thorough preflight and to make sure the controls are free. This
>happened just north of Winnipeg, and the aircraft was the first version
>with PT-6-67 Turboprops. The Canadian DOT concluded that the control
>locks were still locked when the aircraft took off.
>http://www.jumpingpixels.com/turboprops.html

Certainly not to refute what you say about external/internal
preflight inspections but there's something wrong with this film.

This isn't a Buffalo I think, it's a Caribou with two radial
engines I believe, the Buffalo was derived from the Caribou
though. They installed turbo-prop engines and raised the
horizontal stabilizer to the top of the vertical stabilizer (plus
other changes possibly). You'll notice that the engine sound is
of radial piston type and that the horizontal stab is far down on
the vert. stab. The tape was made at Gimli Manitoba (where they
did ihe conversions from piston power to turboprop power.)

That's Gimli Of "Gimli Glider" fame of course...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
wrote:
>>An excellent reminder that there really are good reasons to do a
>>thorough preflight and to make sure the controls are free. This
>>happened just north of Winnipeg, and the aircraft was the first version
>>with PT-6-67 Turboprops. The Canadian DOT concluded that the control
>>locks were still locked when the aircraft took off.
>>http://www.jumpingpixels.com/turboprops.html
>
>Certainly not to refute what you say about external/internal
>preflight inspections but there's something wrong with this film.
>
>This isn't a Buffalo I think, it's a Caribou with two radial
>engines I believe, the Buffalo was derived from the Caribou

No, it isn't a Buffalo. As the text on the web site says, this is a
Caribou with an after-market conversion to turbo prop. Why did you bring
up Buffalos?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
`And when you've been *plonk*ed by Simon C., you've been *plonked*
by someone who knows when, and why, and how.' - Mike Andrews, asr

[Gord Beaman]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, said:
wrote:
>>>An excellent reminder that there really are good reasons to do a
>>>thorough preflight and to make sure the controls are free. This
>>>happened just north of Winnipeg, and the aircraft was the first version
>>>with PT-6-67 Turboprops. The Canadian DOT concluded that the control
>>>locks were still locked when the aircraft took off.
>>>http://www.jumpingpixels.com/turboprops.html
>>
>>Certainly not to refute what you say about external/internal
>>preflight inspections but there's something wrong with this film.
>>
>>This isn't a Buffalo I think, it's a Caribou with two radial
>>engines I believe, the Buffalo was derived from the Caribou
>
>No, it isn't a Buffalo. As the text on the web site says, this is a
>Caribou with an after-market conversion to turbo prop. Why did you bring
>up Buffalos?

Because, as I said, Buffaloes were derived from The Caribou and
they had mentioned that this a/c was being re engined with
turboprops. I guess that I didn't know that the Caribou had ever
been re engined with turboprops unless it was converted to the
Buffalo, but of course I could be wrong...the clip sure didn't
sound like any turboprop engine that I ever heard.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-5_Buffalo

(quote from above URL)
The de Havilland Canada DHC-5 Buffalo is a short take off and
landing (STOL) cargo aircraft, a turboprop conversion of their
earlier piston-powered DHC-4 Caribou. The aircraft has legendary
STOL performance, able to take off in distances much shorter than
even light aircraft. de Havilland Canada was formerly a
subsidiary of De Havilland of the UK and is now a subsidiary of
Bombardier of Canada.
(unquote)

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Ok...it's probably like most of these 'new a/c' when they're
>patterned very closely after the original (like the Argus and the
>Bristol Britannia) the end product is an entirely different a/c
>but close enough that people mistakenly call them 'conversions'

Probably. But those people probably call a Saratoga a converted Archer.

>>There are a couple of companies out there that will convert Caribous into
>>turboprop Caribous, but the end result won't be a Buffalo, it will be a
>>turboprop Caribou.
>>
>
>I see..so what difference is there between a 'turbo Caribou' and
>a Buffalo?

The length, the tail configuration, a few square feet of wing area, etc.

>>My father was chief materials engineer at deHavilland Canada so I grew up
>>with this stuff - I even got a ride in the prototype Dash 7.
>
>I have a friend who used to work at deHavilland Canada at
>Downsview Ontario...his name is Stayner Durocher...did you ever
>run across him?

I don't think so.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.