Alouette III -

[warthog]

why not,sure we can even get this stuff in a nice shade of green down in woodie's  

a few tins of this stuff...lovely hurlin!

only joking...the old bird is the best thing we ever got

oh and shamrock i'd say most of those losses were back in the day when it was more like an aerial version of duffy's circus,much less of that carry on these days

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi all
The write-off rate hasn't been that bad, over all.We once did an unofficial comparison (in the hangar) between ourselves and the RAF over a ten-year period (copying a graph in Air Clues), which, if we had lost hulls at the same rate as they lost non-combat airframes, the entire Don fleet would have been used up in ten years.The RAF were having an average loss rate of 4 non-combat types per annum, of those types comparable to ours, such as Jet provost for Fouga, Bulldog for Marchetti, Wessex for A.III,etc. They were losing about ten combat airframes as total losses per annum, not to mention about half as much again in repairable damaged airframes. If we had been training as hard as them, our loss rate would have wiped us out in a few short years.So, thank heavens for small mercies.
regards
Gttc

[Shamrock145]

Warthog

don't doubt it at all, as I don't have the details to hand I'll check with my source and see if they have any dates

GttC

Indeed yes, the rate of flying may have been a factor, but here's another persepctive, have you calculated the % rate of hull loss for the RAF. I'm not entirely sure but I seem to recall their fleet was somewhat larger than the AC.  

...145

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi Sham,
I agree that, of course, the RAF have a much bigger fleet than the Don's, but the correlation was that they had a very high loss rate of non-combat types that were not engaged in intense combat-type training, with the exception of Hawks engaged in low-level training and weapons training. Obviously, a loss of an RAF hull meant a really small percentage of the overall fleet, compared to ours, where the loss of an airframe to us would have meant a 2 or 3% loss. Another point is that the actual availability of AC aircraft was much less than the RAF equivalent. It was quite common for as few as two AIIIs to be available on any given day.The Alouettes had a much higher accident rate than people are aware off.It was a given that each cadet course on the Alouette would have at least one tail guard strike per class.The walls of Heli were adorned with the bent tail guards and at least one pilot "earned" two! The down time from those incidents was enormous.People patting themselves on the head for the utility of the aircraft might pause to remember that it is the very nature of the Alouette's ease of repair that allowed for their usefulness.
regards
GttC

[Tony Kearns]

Hi Shamrock 145,
I am very interested to know the source of the list quoted and does it explain what is
(A) 42 crashes
(B) 46 written off
© 4 Damaged beyong repair.
 Were the 46 written off, a result of crashes/force landings. Does it include aircraft WFU (Withdrawn From Use) as a result of a bad landing.Would an aircraft which is damaged on landing and damaged beyond repair be condidered a crash ?
Tony K

[Shamrock145]

Right,

my source points me to the following ...

http://www.iol.ie/~asire/aircorps.html

Not very up to date, he added two "crashed" to the numbers supplied to me.

...145

[pilatus]

so any of you guys get an aproximate date yet for when the A111 crashed into the lake in Donegal?it would narrow my search of the local papers from like 112 newspaper editions to about 2editions!  '>