Page 1 of 1

Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:40 pm
by dbcunnz
The PL-11 Airtruck is a New Zealand agricultural aircraft.
A strikingly unusual aircraft, the PL-11 Airtruck was developed from the Kingsford Smith PL.7 as a replacement for the de Havilland Tiger Moth in the New Zealand aerial topdressing market by Luigi Pellarini for Waitomo Aircraft. The prototype was constructed using bits of war surplus ex-RNZAF North American Harvards. It featured all aluminium structure, a high-wing monoplane with a steel stub wing and V lift struts, steerable tricycle undercarriage, an extremely stubby pod fuselage, the cockpit (made from shortened Harvard glazing) being mounted directly over the radial engine, providing excellent forward view and very high drag, beneath it was room for a superphosphate hopper or up to 5 people in a cabin. The strangeness was completed by twin booms each supporting unconnected tail units, (the idea being a truck could reverse between the tail units to load the hopper). Despite the outlandish appearance the Airtruck was surprisingly successful, if unable to compete with the Fletcher Fu24 in its design market.
The first Bennett Airtruck, ZK-BPV, took to the air on 2 August 1960,[1] and crashed during trials in October 1963. Following company reorganization the second example, known as the Waitomo PL-11 Airtruck and registered ZK-CKE, flew in March 1965. It commenced commercial operations late in February 1967 but crashed a few days later. An unconfirmed report indicates that a third airframe was largely constructed but never flew.
A shortage of Harvard parts led to the type being redesigned for all-new construction by the Transavia Corporation, as the Transavia PL-12 Airtruk, 118 of which were produced in Australia between 1965 and 1985.

General characteristics

Crew: 1 pilot, seats for two loaders
Length: 25 ft 8 in (7.82 m)
Wingspan: 48 ft 0 in (14.63 m)
Height: 10 ft 10 in (3.30 m)
Wing area: 369 sq ft (34.3 m2)
Airfoil: NACA 23012
Empty weight: 3,700 lb (1,678 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 7,200 lb (3,266 kg)
Fuel capacity: 84 Imp Gallons (382 L)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340 nine-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 550 hp (410 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 164 mph (264 km/h, 143 kn)
Cruise speed: 124 mph (200 km/h, 108 kn) (econ cruise)
Stall speed: 43 mph (69 km/h, 37 kn) (flaps down, hopper empty)
Range: 450 mi (720 km, 390 nmi) (with max fuel)
Rate of climb: 1,800 ft/min (9.1 m/s) (hopper empty)

PL 11 Airtruck ZK-CKE,, The second of two topdressing aircraft manufactured in New Zealand. Photographed at farm airstrip at Kowhiterangi West Coast in 1966

Image

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:26 pm
by Splitpin
Now that is an award-wining post , the subject matter is superb and something everybody should be aware of. Well done big D :thumbup:

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:04 pm
by emfrat
:hesaid: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:08 pm
by Charl
AirTruck.
Airtruk.
Discuss.
:D

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:16 pm
by emfrat
Charl wrote:AirTruck.
Airtruk.
Discuss.
:D


At a guess, I'd say it was to satisfy the Patent Office. 'Truck' is a common word with many meanings, not just 'lorry', so it could not be patented, or registered as a trademark - but a 'truk'? That's a whole new kettle of fish :lol:

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:56 am
by Aharon
That is weirdest looking plane!!!!

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 5:44 pm
by Splitpin
"weirdest looking plane" ..... Aharon, sometimes, weird is good :P

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:14 pm
by deaneb
No such thing as weird.....I call it functional !!

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:07 pm
by Splitpin
"No such thing as weird.....I call it functional !!" there you are ....all is not lost.

Re: Early NZ Agricultural Aviation

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:20 pm
by emfrat
Splitpin wrote:"No such thing as weird.....I call it functional !!" there you are ....all is not lost.

It was a very effective machine, did what it was designed to do very well. It also irritated a lot of folk who thought aeroplanes should not be allowed to look like that. I count that as a bonus, but some would call it 'collateral damage' :P