Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilatus Porter Performance...simply Unreal!  
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5294 times:

Hello all,

I was reading a book today, "Climbing the World's 14 Highest Mountains" when I came across an interesting passage regarding the operations of a Pilatus Porter in support of an expedition in 1960 to climb Dhaulagiri in Nepal, at 26,794 ft. (8,167m) the 7th highest mountain in the world...I will quote the relevant portions here...

"The reason there was so few Sherpas was that the expedition was supported by a Pilatus Porter glacier plane (painted red and yellow and christened 'Yeti') whose pilot and co-pilot/mechanic Ernst Saxer and Emil Wick became critical members of the team.

The plane was to be used to fly equipment and climbers to the north-east col, though an early acclimatization camp was first set up on the Dambush Pass. The pass is at 5,200m (17,050 ft), a world-record height for a plane landing. The north-east col is at 5,700m (18,700 ft) and when landings were made there it (obviously) set a new world record. The use of the plane allowed the team to avoid a tedious walk-in and any possible disputes with porters, but the rapid height gain (from Pokhara to 5,200m in about an hour) caused all the climbers and Sherpas problems with altitude sickness. The plane was also not without its problems. Having successfully flown from Switzerland to Pokhara and made numerous flights to Dambush and the Col, it blew a cylinder forcing an emergency landing at Pokhara from which the pilots escaped unscathed. A replacement engine was obtained in a very fast time, but the plane later crashed on the Dambush Pass. Again the pilots escaped unharmed...

...The early arrivals on the Col (the northeast) forced the route upwards, though one of their earliest tasks was to stamp out a runway for Yeti when its skis sank in soft snow. The take-off along this makeshift runway was a do-or-die effort by Ernst Saxer flying alone: fail to take off and he and the plane would disappear into a crevasse; make insufficient height in time and he would crash into seracs (added by me: large ice walls for those not mountain oriented). Take-off was successfu and represented the most courageous act of the trip."

If there ever was a plane that defined STOL performance, the Porter is it...but this is astounding...does anyone know more about this or could figure out more (ie takeoff lengths, etc?)...or also provide insight into how this is possible, please reply...

Thanks,
Greg




Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5224 times:

The Helio Courier had much better STOL preformance, it would take off in a plane length and it had no published stall speed. Quite a preformer, I could only think what kind of preformance it could have gotten with a turbine engine.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5185 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Having successfully flown from Switzerland to Pokhara and made numerous flights to Dambush and the Col, it blew a cylinder forcing an emergency landing at Pokhara from which the pilots escaped unscathed."

Blew a cylinder? I thought the Porter had a PT6 turbine engine. Am I mixing it up with something else?

Porter is a spectacular performer, but I think the Beaver defined STOL, or maybe the Westland Lysander. Beaver can claw its way to 18,000 feet too.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5167 times:

Early porters were piston.

From what I understand Porters were piston and the Turbo Porter is turbine. But it seems that they only configuration that they sell new now days is the turbine version.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4964 times:

The turbo-porter (the only version I know personally) is truly a fantastic STOL performer. I have personally witnessed it operate from an RC-plane runway (150') with plenty of room to spare (if you can get ahold of Clay Lacy's 1998 or 1999 calendar, there's a picture of him taking off with his Turbo Porter from the RC field.

The Porter can also do in-flight beta (reverse) thrust, meaning it can approach at incredibly steep angles and land in essentially zero feet.

I don't know what the high-altitude performance would be, but at sea level, it's remarkable.

Steve


User currently offline707cmf From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4935 times:

The paragliging club of my local airport uses a Porter, and can confirm. Every tiimes, it descends at an incredibly steep angle, and usually lands at the same moment the first paraglider touches the ground. Quite amazing.


Also I'm not sure it's good for the pilot's ears  Wink/being sarcastic

Antoine


User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4896 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



So, this plane can take off in 50 metres of runway? What's its secret? T/W ratio? Can't be the high lift devices or the aspect ratio, can it?

This post has truly stirred my curiosity...

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlinePmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4811 times:

As an owner of it's older brother a PC-12, I can tell you this.

We can take off at MTOW in 1200ft.

Peter


User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4780 times:

Umm...the PC-12 and Porter share a common manufacturer but besides that Id say its safe to say they are not even close to each other in terms of design, performance, etc...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4722 times:

Pmk,

How do you like your PC-12? I must say that I am impressed with it. On paper anyway, because unless I hit the lottery or acquire the cash from your industry  Laugh out loud, I have no chance of owning one. The performance is truly impressive.

I have a fried that now works for Cessna, and we were talking about the CJ1, new Mustang vs the Eclipse and other "personal jets". I then asked him how Cessna's small jets can match up with the PC-12. Without skipping a beat he said we don't have anything that can compete with the PC-12. I was surprised when he said that. "Speed is the only thing we have vs the PC-12."

USAFHummer,

Your comparing apples to oranges there dude. But tell me this, you know of another fixed wing aircraft that weighs 9,000+ lbs that can get off the ground in 1,200 ft? There aren't many, I assure you of that.


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4716 times:

A small footnote; Nepal no longer allows single engine commercial ops, so no more Porters are there. I see them fairly regularly, and the performance is impressive.

User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4705 times:

Boeing nut,

Im aware of that, thats what I was trying to say, that the PC-12 and PC-6 cant be compared to each other, two different planes completely...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4681 times:

USAFHummer,

It's all good. The way I read it I interpreted it as you telling Pmk that he wasn't aware of the performance of both aircraft.

Either way, performance of both aircraft are impressive.


User currently offlineMcdonobr From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4630 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boy, does this discussion bring back some very fond memories. While living in Bangkok as a young teenager from '63-'67 I used to hitch rides on
Air America, Bird Air, & Continental Air Svs. Pilatus Porter/turbo Porter and Helio Couriers doing daily personnel & supply runs to Thai Border Patrol Police camps. Some of the airstrips were very, very short dirt runways "more like paths" cut out on the top of mountaintops at unbelievable angles (very few level ones and often ending at a cliff edge). I was always amazed at how slow they could fly and still stay airborne, guess that's where those huge Porter wings came in handy. This was the real beginning of my life as a "plane nut".


User currently offlineUkair From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

I think the Fiesheler Stork outperformed the Lysander at least in landing and take off distances.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pilatus Porter Performance...simply Unreal!
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cranfield. Also, Performance Opts On Private A/C posted Sat Sep 23 2006 23:09:54 by BAe146QT
High Air Temp Affecting Aircraft Performance? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 11:36:00 by Singel09
Pilatus PC12 Wing Fairing posted Wed May 31 2006 10:56:20 by Willo
767-400 Takeoff Performance posted Wed Apr 5 2006 23:48:41 by FLY777UAL
CFM56-5C Engines Test Cell Performance Analyze posted Tue Dec 13 2005 16:33:18 by Thyengine
Net Flight Path And All-engine Performance posted Sun Dec 4 2005 16:40:15 by BKAA
737-300 Performance Questions posted Sun Oct 16 2005 05:45:53 by KensukeAida
An 124, Take-off Performance posted Fri Oct 14 2005 22:44:19 by MerlinIIIB
Performance Penalties posted Sun Sep 4 2005 10:45:59 by 744rules
Climb Rate/take-off Performance For Widebodies posted Sat Sep 3 2005 01:01:31 by WunalaYann

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format