10 May 2025, 14:04 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt  Posted: 21 May 2019, 09:11 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 11/01/08
Posts: 2687
Post Likes: +717
|
|
|
[youtube]http://youtu.be/z0aQtBTNxWg[/youtube]
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 21 May 2019, 12:28 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 07/21/08
Posts: 5709
Post Likes: +7032
Location: Decatur, TX (XA99)
Aircraft: 1979 Bonanza A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: [youtube]http://youtu.be/z0aQtBTNxWg[/youtube] That is some amazing footage! How do they film that low angle?? 
_________________
I'm just here for the free snacks
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 21 May 2019, 20:29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 753
Post Likes: +540
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
|
|
|
Anyone know where that runway was? It looks like Nevada or Arizona.
Vince
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 21 May 2019, 22:30 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 753
Post Likes: +540
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
|
|
Username Protected wrote: OZ. I would think western OZ. I just noticed the truck was a right hand drive. Vince
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 21 May 2019, 22:37 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2817
Post Likes: +2773
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: OZ. I would think western OZ. RFDS is Royal Flying Doctor Service so yeah, Oz.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 22 May 2019, 10:52 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/20/11
Posts: 31
Post Likes: +15
Location: Queensland
Aircraft: Commander 114
|
|
|
We in Australia are very proud of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. It’s a free service providing medical care to anyone (Australians & Foreigners) who live, work or travel in rural and remote Australia. It’s a great example of socialised medicine, as it’s almost totally funded by the Australian Government.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 22 May 2019, 13:15 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/23/10
Posts: 891
Post Likes: +710
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It’s a great example of socialised medicine, as it’s almost totally funded by the Australian Government. You mean funded by the taxpayers, right? I was wondering how these doctors could afford a PC-24 for this humanitarian type mission. You just answered it. Is a PC-24 really warranted for this? What does it do that a PC-12 will not? Sure a little more speed, but at a lot more expense. I wonder what the difference in block times is for a typical mission? If I were a taxpayer I would find this to be an unneccessary expense. This isn't intended to be a criticism of the great people of Australia, our (USA) government pisses away money on lot's of unneccessary (but very cool) stuff too.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 22 May 2019, 16:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/16/10
Posts: 144
Post Likes: +54
Location: Toronto, Canada
Aircraft: 601P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It’s a great example of socialised medicine, as it’s almost totally funded by the Australian Government. You mean funded by the taxpayers, right? I was wondering how these doctors could afford a PC-24 for this humanitarian type mission. You just answered it. Is a PC-24 really warranted for this? What does it do that a PC-12 will not? Sure a little more speed, but at a lot more expense. I wonder what the difference in block times is for a typical mission? If I were a taxpayer I would find this to be an unneccessary expense. This isn't intended to be a criticism of the great people of Australia, our (USA) government pisses away money on lot's of unneccessary (but very cool) stuff too.
Hi Carl
Suggest you do a little research on Australia and the RFDS before shooting off on this one. I'm not starting a political argument here but Australians are very proud of our socialised medical system and it has been proven time and time again to deliver a world class outcome effectively and cheaply.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/australian-healthcare-ranked-second-best-in-developed-world/8716326
It does this considering the challenges of Australia's geography. Our population density averages 1.7 people per sq km (0.7 per sq mile) compared to the USA's approx 96 per square mile. Consider this map 
As you can see, the vast majority of the country is a long long way from a major city. We do not believe that the cost of medical treatement should be post (zip) code dependent. Consider the cost of providing hospitals and staffing them (even if you can find staff willing to live in these places) and compare that to the cost of transporting patients to the hospital. We don't believe that patient transfer is a 'humanitarian flight' - simply an attempt to provide the same/similar service level regarless of geography. There is a cost benefit too. While Australians (particularly first-people) have some terrible health statistics, the RFDS spends a lot of time flying mobile clinics to outback areas. By taking a clinci aircraft with nurses, doctors, dentists, mental health professionals to areas that are often 10+ hours from a medical clinic, preventative medicine will ultimately save the taxpayers (yes, we believe in socilaised medicine) far more than waiting until these people are properly sick and need treatment.
Why not use a PC12? Again, a trip from Central Australia to a city may be >2000nm and the block time difference significant in a life or death situation (granted, I don't believe the PC24 is being used for emergency transport) but on those legs, the cost per km is gong to be getting closer to even before considering the capital cost of multiple crewed PC12s against a single PC24.
The RFDS is a not for profit charity. The government generally pays for all patient transport but the organisation raises large amounts of money to buy the aircraft. Most (all?) state governments tender patient transfer services so the RFDS has to compete competitively for them.
Sorry if this seems like a rant. Australian's will identify the RFDS as one of our countries iconic institutions. They are aviation professionals and have been for over 90 years. They are pioneers (launch customers for PC12s and PC24s) and they deliver a service that is core to Australian ideals of universal healthcare and our fairly unique geographical challenges.
OK - back to aviation!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 22 May 2019, 16:51 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/16/10
Posts: 144
Post Likes: +54
Location: Toronto, Canada
Aircraft: 601P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I learned my lesson flying on dirt strips like that about 20 years ago.
Trashed my flaps and Stab tips (Tiger).
Watching that PC land it looks like the inboard sections of those flaps are scheduled for RIP lol.
T The RFDS was a launch customer for the PC24 and does a very large portion of the worlds PC12 operations onto dirt strips. The development of the PC24 for these types of strips has been in the design from day 1.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 22 May 2019, 20:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/23/10
Posts: 891
Post Likes: +710
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You mean funded by the taxpayers, right? I was wondering how these doctors could afford a PC-24 for this humanitarian type mission. You just answered it. Is a PC-24 really warranted for this? What does it do that a PC-12 will not? Sure a little more speed, but at a lot more expense. I wonder what the difference in block times is for a typical mission? If I were a taxpayer I would find this to be an unneccessary expense. This isn't intended to be a criticism of the great people of Australia, our (USA) government pisses away money on lot's of unneccessary (but very cool) stuff too. Hi Carl Suggest you do a little research on Australia and the RFDS before shooting off on this one. I'm not starting a political argument here but Australians are very proud of our socialised medical system and it has been proven time and time again to deliver a world class outcome effectively and cheaply. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/australian-healthcare-ranked-second-best-in-developed-world/8716326It does this considering the challenges of Australia's geography. Our population density averages 1.7 people per sq km (0.7 per sq mile) compared to the USA's approx 96 per square mile. Consider this map As you can see, the vast majority of the country is a long long way from a major city. We do not believe that the cost of medical treatement should be post (zip) code dependent. Consider the cost of providing hospitals and staffing them (even if you can find staff willing to live in these places) and compare that to the cost of transporting patients to the hospital. We don't believe that patient transfer is a 'humanitarian flight' - simply an attempt to provide the same/similar service level regarless of geography. There is a cost benefit too. While Australians (particularly first-people) have some terrible health statistics, the RFDS spends a lot of time flying mobile clinics to outback areas. By taking a clinci aircraft with nurses, doctors, dentists, mental health professionals to areas that are often 10+ hours from a medical clinic, preventative medicine will ultimately save the taxpayers (yes, we believe in socilaised medicine) far more than waiting until these people are properly sick and need treatment. Why not use a PC12? Again, a trip from Central Australia to a city may be >2000nm and the block time difference significant in a life or death situation (granted, I don't believe the PC24 is being used for emergency transport) but on those legs, the cost per km is gong to be getting closer to even before considering the capital cost of multiple crewed PC12s against a single PC24. The RFDS is a not for profit charity. The government generally pays for all patient transport but the organisation raises large amounts of money to buy the aircraft. Most (all?) state governments tender patient transfer services so the RFDS has to compete competitively for them. Sorry if this seems like a rant. Australian's will identify the RFDS as one of our countries iconic institutions. They are aviation professionals and have been for over 90 years. They are pioneers (launch customers for PC12s and PC24s) and they deliver a service that is core to Australian ideals of universal healthcare and our fairly unique geographical challenges. OK - back to aviation!
Richard, thank you for the local perspective. I shouldn't have allowed my libertarian view point to color my commentary here on Beechtalk. It's not for me to judge how others choose to spend their money. Lord knows I would have a hard time justifying the airplane I choose to fly for my mission. I probably shouldn't belabor the point, but I'll just share with you why I felt compelled to post, which is to say that while Australian's appear to be very proud of their socialized medicine, many of us American's (used to be most, but I'm not sure anymore) tend to take great pride in the belief that our government is "by the people, for the people" and is just a collective extension of the individuals, and as such view the government's money as "our" money that we worked hard to contribute. Do Australian's view their government's financial expenditures the same way? As their money being spent? That's an honest question, I'm not trying to debate the matter, but rather just share view points. I'm pleased to learn that the RFDS is a non-profit organization and funded in large(?) part by what I assume are donations from a very generous citizenry. That is certainly something to take great pride in. I hope that you, Thomas, and all the other Aussies on this board don't take too much offense to that which I posted.
Prior to posting I looked at a map of Australia and it looked to me like all areas of Australia were within say a few hundred nautical miles or so of civilization (hospitals) and the block time between the PC-24 and PC-12 for a typical mission would be negligible (Say, 15-20 minutes on the longest of missions?). But, that's easy to say when you're not the one being rushed to medical care. I do wonder how many lives are lost because the PC-12 didn't get there in time? Many?
One thing I am certain of, I'm very pleased that a mission exists to warrant the development of such a cool airplane, regardless of who is footing the bill. I don't think I'll ever be in a position to own one, but if I were I couldn't think of a more awesome way to get to a remote ranch. It almost inspires me to get off Beechtalk and get back to work....almost.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Pilatus PC-24 on dirt Posted: 23 May 2019, 08:08 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4438
Post Likes: +3303
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
|
|
|
Richard, do you know if the RFDS has used Metro/Merlin aircraft is the past? I have a Merlin and am based on a dirt strip. The dirt strip is never a handling issue when it is dry. The problem is when they get wet from rains. Some soils will remain firm but become super slick while others lose bearing capacity let your tires bog down. Big problem if one side were to bog down and the other not. I have been very cautious and simply do not operate on the strip when it is wet.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
