http://www.peninsulanewsreview.com/p...d=969390&more=

MMmmmm, twin beavers....

 

Can't wait to see a new version of that aircraft. If I had the money, I'd by myself a personal Twin Otter.

 

Sweet!!!! Never even seen one in person, but know enough to say that they are great planes that I'd love to get my hands on one day.

 

I'd do anything to get inside a Twotter

 

How hard/easy is it to fly a twotter?

 

It's basically like a big 172 that handles a little like a bus. And you get multi turbine time. It's kind of a loophole, actually. It really shouldn't be this easy.

 

Have about 30 hours in one and yes it's a big 172. Doesn't cruise much faster either. But it is the ultimate bush plane. It has to be the easiest turbine to fly next to the caravan. It'll stop in a couple hundred feet take off in not much more and carry 18 or 19 pax. If you want to check one out and go for a ride I would suggest going to a skydive center. Any dropzone near a bigger city will have one and they'll take you up for probably nothing if you say you're a pilot, at most $20.
I hope they do make more. Really cool on floats too!

 

About as easy as it is to fly a C-130.

 

I completely disagree. I flew the Twotter at Scenic Airlines a year and a half ago, got almost 500 hours in it. I hated that airplane. It's ugly, it's slow, it's underpowered...it could barely climb at 500 fpm up to 10,000ft with fuel and passengers, it's dangerous in icing, it's dangerous in strong winds.
You feel every single turbulent bump because it's such a pig. It's a pain in the ass to control on the ground during takeoff and landing. There is no autopilot. There is no lavatory. It's an all-around crappy airplane.
A Twin Otter is basically a mix between a King Air and a Caravan, with all the worst characteristics of each and none of the good.
It does everything mediocre. It's not good at anything, but since there's not much else available to fulfill it's role, it's the best of what's left.
The passenger seats are tiny, not even enough room for small asian women to sit comfortably. The luggage storage is virtually nonexistent. The only thing I liked about it was the roomy cockpit.

 

Oh, come on. It's a great airplane for what it is. It was designed mainly to carry a load into and out of short runways, and it does that outstandingly. The 100 and 200 otters with the -20 engines are underpowered, but any halfway decent otter has -27s or even -34s and does just fine. Mine climbs at nearly 1500fpm with 23 people and 1000lbs of fuel to 14,000ft. I've never flown it in icing conditions, but NASA used one for a research testbed and they came out of it alive. It's challenging in strong winds, but I've had it in some 30kt crosswinds and still kept it on a 50ft wide runway. And did you ever really see how short you can land it? Come in with full flaps right above stall speed and then go max reverse and you can stop in a few hundred feet. I'd say that's pretty good. And they're in demand, or why else would Viking even consider starting production again?

If you don't like because it's not a jet, then fine. But that's not the otter's fault.