A Couple of riders if I may:
Quote:
The aircraft in question is a Frake's G-73T Turbine Mallard remanufactured in Texas probably in the 1970's or 1980's. It started life in the post war 1940's as a Grumman G-73 with P&W R-1340's of 600 hp. with three bladed Hamilton Standard props. (Similar to DHC Otter) There were only about 59 built and many of those are long gone due to accidents, corrosion, hurricanes, etc.
Overall a good sketch on the type, but the final remark is not really accurate or a fair comment on the type's survival rate. The Mallard was built in small numbers, a disproportionately large number of which survive, and for an aircraft of that era, interestingly most survivors are still in use. (To put that in perspective it would be difficult to find a comparable type of that era, but even DC-3 or Fokker Friendships don't compare as to survivors/production, especially if you consider they are not a marine type - with it's tougher environment and 'runways'. I think the Martin Mars would be about the only thing with a small production run and high survival numbers ratio! Albatross (a military design) and the PBY certainly can't compare. I'm sorry I can't provide a survivors listing - my sources have let me down, but I can account for aprox 15 - 20 around, mostly active in the last few years. That's a third to half of a production run half a century ago! Paspaley Pearls (Pearl Aviation) in Broome, Australia use a couple, there's a few in US private hands, and I've seen five under refurbishment at Sidney Airport, Vancouver Island, in addition to Chalks' (once 'Pan Am Air Bridge') fleet.
Quote:
It was never used by the military and was eclipsed by the HU-16 Albatross. It's bigger than the Goose and smaller than an Albatross. Chalks tried the Albatross briefly in the 1980's but operating costs were too high.
It's misleading to say that the Mallard couldn't compete with the Albatross and wasn't used by the military, as that wasn't the idea anyway. It was always, only, intended as a civil feederliner - the job it did, and in some places still does in fact. Sure, Grumman would've taken military sales, but that wasn't the idea. It's often forgotten that the Goose was originally designed for a group of rich New Yorkers who needed something to get out of town for fishing trips and back in the 30s. The Mallard, was, to some extent a postwar version of the Goose. The Albatross was a design for military use - so it was a different aircraft.
This accident is tragic on so many levels, and I'd expect ignorant and prejudiced attitudes from the mainstream media, but there's a lack of perspective from some of us here too.
The Mallard has an excellent safety record; it's a highly seaworthy and air-worthy aircraft, tough as you'd expect and effective. How fast it goes is, IMHO, almost completely irrelevant. The point is that Mallards have been used all over the world (literally) from the Arctic region to the Antarctic with very few serious accidents right up to the present day. (Sorry I can't provide stats for this either - would appreciate any input - but before I get hung for talking in general terms, when was the last Mallard accident you heard of?)
Grumman are, arguably, the best amphibian builders in history with their suite of types, and just because they aren't headline catchers they get overlooked. Grumman (like many other postwar aircraft builders) were caught out by the lack of a postwar marine aircraft or amphibian market everyone expected; no one factored in all those wartime runways everywhere. That knocked the original sales down, but Mallards have filled the (smaller) niche they were designed for ever since. What replaces a DC-3? Another DC-3. What replaces a Mallard? A turbo Mallard - and nothing else has ever been able to fill that task.
When did you last fly in a 1940s design in regular revenue-earning use? And if you did, it certainly wasn't an amphibian or the only type in its class.
Chalks, too, has a safety record (yes, even now) that many other airlines would be hard pushed to match. Certainly up to before this accident their passenger safety record was what it should be and a lot better than a number of national flag carriers. Leaving aside their long history, just their Mallard safety record was better than say a 737, 747 or well, any other airliner type you can think of. Yet everyone is acting like it was inevitable.
This if a horrendous blow for an airline that has up to now had an excellent record and this terrible accident may take them down, which would be unjust. Ill informed speculation over saltwater corrosion helps no-one; Chalks were aware of what they were doing, and were mandated to take agreed steps. Something went wrong, but if the FAA and Chalks didn't know it was coming, we certainly aren't going to work it out here.
I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, nor that people are unthinking, but Chalks have a track record in this arena. They knew, except for two tragic errors, what they were doing. Few other aviation organisations can say as much.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
this board was worth anything more than entertainment value?.
