The end of the XL750?

Don't know anymore than this. Sad news. I was there when the 1st load was done out Cresco - the predecessor to the 750. It was a 4 way as the fertilizer hopper was taking up space. WTF thank you Covid.  

Hamilton aircraft maker Pacific Aerospace tells CAA it's insolvent | Stuff.co.nz

5 hours ago, Rover said:

Don't know anymore than this. Sad news. I was there when the 1st load was done out Cresco - the predecessor to the 750. It was a 4 way as the fertilizer hopper was taking up space. WTF thank you Covid.  

 

Hamilton aircraft maker Pacific Aerospace tells CAA it's insolvent | Stuff.co.nz

Maybe this will be a replacement.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/535928424380070722/

https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/sases-Eval_Pilatus.pdf

3 hours ago, TampaPete said:

Maybe this will be a replacement.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/535928424380070722/

https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/sases-Eval_Pilatus.pdf

 

 

Hi Pete'

Re:  Maybe this will be a replacement.

One can always buy another/different aircraft.  That's just money.

IMO the real problem is with owners of the 750 being able to get new parts.

Jerry Baumchen 

2 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Pete'

Re:  Maybe this will be a replacement.

One can always buy another/different aircraft.  That's just money.

IMO the real problem is with owners of the 750 being able to get new parts.

Jerry Baumchen 

I agree.

The PC 12 is just a wish list item. 

51 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Pete'

Re:  Maybe this will be a replacement.

One can always buy another/different aircraft.  That's just money.

IMO the real problem is with owners of the 750 being able to get new parts.

Jerry Baumchen 

Too soon to worry. PAC has reorganized before. This time a major shareholder departed and the other major shareholder isn't exercising their right of refusal so they need to find a taker. I do think if it does go south Jerry is right about parts. With Twin Otters there were fleet operators who kept large stocks of new spares that found their way onto the market from time to time. I know I brought a full Otter load of new parts out of Columbia in '01 and a lot more was there. Not sure how many PAC's are operated in fleets, though.

I wouldn't be terribly worried at this point. 

I would suspect there's a pretty good chance that they will reorganize and re-emerge. Not sure how the bankruptcy rules in New Zealand work, but in the US, it wouldn't be terribly difficult.

And even if Pacific Aerospace doesn't survive, the certifications will. 

Again, I don't know how NZ does this sort of thing, but here in the US, the certs and rights to produce both completed planes and replacement parts would be auctioned off to generate funds to pay creditors (depending on a few things). 

I would be surprised if someone isn't interested in a 'ready to go' plane to make.

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I wouldn't be terribly worried at this point. 

I would suspect there's a pretty good chance that they will reorganize and re-emerge. Not sure how the bankruptcy rules in New Zealand work, but in the US, it wouldn't be terribly difficult.

And even if Pacific Aerospace doesn't survive, the certifications will. 

Again, I don't know how NZ does this sort of thing, but here in the US, the certs and rights to produce both completed planes and replacement parts would be auctioned off to generate funds to pay creditors (depending on a few things). 

I would be surprised if someone isn't interested in a 'ready to go' plane to make.

Not the way it works, Joe. Take a look at how long it was between when De Havilland stopped production of the Twin Otter in 1988 and Viking delivered the first -400 series in 2010. And the PAC doesn't have a fraction of the market penetration or the utility of the Twin Otter. The reality is that it's a variant of a fertilizing plane developed for op's in New Zealand. Outside of that a Caravan is a vastly better platform. I went to Hamilton NZ to inspect the first prototype back when. They are robust, for example the landing gear is actually built for 4-6 landings an hour, but for jumping they have big flaws in my view. The -34 engine isn't the best choice. Old tech. I think the -135 would have been better. The trapizoidal shaped door is too unlike the Otter which remains the gold standard for training. I did not like to door/tail geometry either. Also, nature didn't make any low wing birds, I've noticed. So I passed.