Warbird Information Exchange

What would be the reasons no Catalina's have been converted to turboprop? Seems like an excellent candidate and would mean more could take to the air again? With the Basler DC-3 conversion, Grumman turboprop amphibian conversions,...
Seems weird to me that no one thought of a Catalina/ Canso

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

In fact it was thought of. Avalon Aviation , a waterbombing company of Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada with a large fleet of Catalinas, did a study with a view to installing RR Darts in the Catalina airframe but it did not get beyond that. An artist's impression exists. Avalon went out of business in the mid-1980s but I think the project had been canned by that point anyway. The Catalina was a very effective fire-fighter but I'm not sure the economics of installing turboprops would have stacked up. At the time that Avalon were looking into it, the CL-215 purpose-built water bomber was gathering orders and a number of established Catalina operators went down that route instead. Plus in addition to Avalon, another large Canadian Catalina operator - Flying Fireman Ltd of Victoria, BC - went out of business and this may have reduced potential demand further. So, drawing board only! Of course, the -215 did go on to become a turboprop as the CL-415.

_________________
David Legg
Editor, The Catalina News
The Catalina Society
Author: Consolidated PBY Catalina - The Peacetime Record

Found the next best thing Scroll about 2/3 down the page.

http://www.freylia.net/

_________________
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool...

Aah, the Bird innovator. Weird looking contraption. Can't help to wonder if he wouldn't have had better performance with 2 turboprops instead of adding the 2 small engines.

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

2 roller bearing -92 R-2600's, 2 IO 540's, I have a few hours post check ride time in the BIRD, neat airplane and amazing takeoff performance about double a straight PBY's climb.
I'm not so sure, given the amount you'd have to extend the engines out forward of the firewalls to make the weight and balance numbers work that the bobbing action of that mass that far forward on long mounts, that the mounts wouldn't have issues or have engines whipping around in a rough water situation that's a lot of mass that would be waving around.
Take a look @ the DC-3 that BEA modified with DARTS, the props were about even with the tip of the nose, performance gain - about a draw.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

not an engineer but that looks to me like it would end up like the airship with the four helicopters atatched to it!

My guess is that the Catalina was regarded as an obsolete airframe with an obsolete role by the time turboprops would have been viable. Also, R-1820's and R-2600's were plentiful, so why spend the bucks to upgrade to the turbine on the obsolete airframe.

Catalina's served in firefighting roles until very recently, so I'd hardly say they were so obsolete as to not warrant consideration for turboprop conversion. They've put turbos on just about every other flying boat that survived in quantity from that rough time frame, such as the Grumman Goose and Albatross. And who can forget the turbo powered DC-3's that still serve in military's and cargo services across the world? R-1820's and R-2600's may be more plentiful, but they are also more maintenance intensive and heavier than an equivalent turbo, such as a PT-6, which is why so many other radial engined aircraft were converted onto them... like the DHC-2 Beaver, DHC-3 Otter, Grumman S-2 Tracker, etc.

All the best,
Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com

Wait a minute there. Unless you come up with a better reason, I'm sticking with mine...

A sphere of activity which is not known for spending much money on its airplanes . If a Dart/Allison PBY (don't think the PT6 would have the oomph) wasn't viable in 1960s, it certainly wasn't thereafter.

Tanker operators not spending money on their aircraft? Hmmm...I think I stopped at the wrong airport here. There are massive amounts of money spent to keep these tankers in the air simply because the USFS and BLM don't have the backbone to stand up to the Washington DC gang, aircraft manufacturers and demand newer airframes. We work with what we have and because of the post 9/11 garbage, airframes are tougher if not impossible to get out of AMARC.

Look at Aero Union, Butler and CalFire...even Neptune. The amount of money spent to provide a very needed service is astronomical. Income is based on a contract and breaking even is a blessing at the end of the season.

I still look at what Marsh is doing with CalFire's S-2T's and can only dream about the "what if's" that could have been prior to the Blue Ribbon Report killing most of the tanker industry as we know it.

OK, off my soap box now...carry on and Happy New Year to all
Tom

_________________
...not a complete idiot, some parts ARE missing!

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant the acquisition of aircraft, I know first-hand what it takes to keep them flying.

Apart from the Canadairs, which came later, the tankers were all redundant warbirds or airliners. In the early years there were plenty of them around which could be had for a fraction of the cost of a new airframe even if there had been a suitable one. The March and Conair S2F conversions prolonged the useful life for them and the engine was a good fit; we'll never know if a turbo PBY would have made financial sense as well.

There was a Dart-powered B-17 tanker but it was destroyed in a crash so there's no documentation how efficient or economic it was.


This

purports to be a single engined B-17 but it's just a bit of photoshopping of this


W.

Just to put the 'very recently' into perspective, there has been hardly any Catalina usage in the fire-fighting role since the very beginning of the 2000's at the latest. By the start of the millenium, those based in Spain/Portugal had either been retired or were about to be and, in Canada, only Buffalo Airways had active aircraft in their fleet (C-FNJE had an accident in July 2001 that terminated its flying career). Those in Newfoundland and Labrador were in storage by this time. Beyond the start of the 'noughties', the only regularly active fire fighting PBY was Flying Fireman Inc's PBY-6A N85U in Washington State and I am not certain if it is still active in the role - it did fly a couple of airshows in 2009. Ironically, given Kyleb's earlier comments, it was a Cyclone-engined conversion.

_________________
David Legg
Editor, The Catalina News
The Catalina Society
Author: Consolidated PBY Catalina - The Peacetime Record