CAP Aircraft Purchases

[KyCAP]

I've heard that NHQ is considering purchasing new 172s from Cessna again.   I would ask the logic in this when there are 182 G-1000s on the market for LESS than the cost of a new 172 that would match the current airframes that we have on hand.   Less the VHF-comm, paint and yingling avionics mods still seems somewhat reasonable to pull a off-the-shelf 182 in and re-paint our markings rather than purchase a 172 G-1000?

www.aso.com is chocked with NAV III's in the "range".

[RiverAux]

They are doing some extensive upgrades to our existing 172s, but haven't heard anything about buying any. 

[cap235629]

Our wing DO informed our squadron that the plan is to retrofit our current fleet by taking a high hour aircraft and doing a ground up restoration taking it to a zero hour aircraft.  This includes new engine, interior, paint, radios and a retrofit glass cockpit (I can't remember the name of the avionics, any pilot care to help me here)

The cost for a ground up refurb is around $150,000 and as he stated, we can do 3 1/2 of these conversions for the cost of just one G-1000 C182.

He is a contemporary of BG Chitwood and told us this is what they had discussed, so take it for what it is worth but I think it is a GREAT idea.....

[KyCAP]

I would suggest that the economics that they used to compute that cost of 182 G-1000 is off quite a bit based on the current market..

For example, using your $150K x 3.5 birds = $525,000 for an airframe.   There are a number of G-1000 182s on www.aso.com for $230,000.   So, in today's market that math doesn't work because they're not comparing new 182's to new 172's per se.

Plus we're adding in another "avionics" mess with bringing another manufacturer's systems.   We should just stick to either steam gauge or G-1000 and not introduce something in between for yet another round of Form 5 and pilot qualification mess.   I have to fly 1/3 of my approaches in the 172 goo, 1/3 in steam gauge and 1/3 in G-1000 ().   That doesn't start to compute.

Linky

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that CAP adds things to our planes which aren't in the regular package which up the price a bit from the floor model.  Also, keep in mind that the person was quoting probably third hand information so I wouldn't take those figures as exact gospel...

[KyCAP]

Right.   Technisonic radio = $10K... The SDIS package = $6K   Don't know about the second G-1000 audio panel and Yingling costs, but still when you look at the base costs and the complications of yet a second glass cockpit scenario... oh boy... I can hear DOV wheels a churning.... 

I fly a Cirrus SR-22 occasionally with Avidyne and am headed to Cessna Advanced Technical Training for Ground School on Lancair 400 with Avidyne and it's interesting keeping the G-1000 and Avidyne bits and pieces in the right buckets.

[cap235629]

according to the Cessna Website the base price for a new C-182 is $418,000

[PHall]

according to the Cessna Website the base price for a new C-182 is $418,000

I don't think CAP pays the "retail" price. We pay the "government" price.

[CadetProgramGuy]

according to the Cessna Website the base price for a new C-182 is $418,000

I don't think CAP pays the "retail" price. We pay the "government" price.

Oh, so we forgot to add 25% to the total........

[sardak]

The FY08 and FY09 USAF budgets show for FY09, five 182Ts at a unit cost of $474k. The description includes all the add-ons (SDIS, Becker, etc.).

Mike

[NIN]

The FY08 and FY09 USAF budgets show for FY09, five 182Ts at a unit cost of $474k. The description includes all the add-ons (SDIS, Becker, etc.).

Yow. I thought we were paying about $350K or so per plane, even the glass.  My, has the cost of aluminum and rivets in an airplane-like shape skyrocketed.

At $474K/plane, we can really knock some heads with the 172 upgrades.  Getting a fairly close to zero-time bird (the airframe, as I recall, cannot be "zero-timed") with some bells & whistles for $150k/each is not a bad reinvestment, especially if the aircraft are fairly aged and have already been depreciated as a capital expense.  (anybody an accounting type and know what the depreciation schedule of a plane is?<GRIN>)

The glass proposed for the 172 upgrades is an Aspen, BTW.

[JGremlin]

Plus we're adding in another "avionics" mess with bringing another manufacturer's systems.   We should just stick to either steam gauge or G-1000 and not introduce something in between for yet another round of Form 5 and pilot qualification mess.   I have to fly 1/3 of my approaches in the 172 goo, 1/3 in steam gauge and 1/3 in G-1000 ().   That doesn't start to compute.

Do you have any experience with the proposed systems in question? From what I understand, they're looking at adding an Aspen system to the 172's. I have not yet flown behind an Apsen system but I have messed with them at trade shows. They are a display system only, not an integrated display, radio and nav system like the G1000. It took me all of about a minute and half to figure out how to navigate the menu and get the nav head I wanted to use to show up on the HSI. I honestly don't think the systems will cause the avionics mess you think they will in terms of requiring additional training and knowledge.

If they were proposing to equip the 172's with Avadine system, I would agree with you. But from what I've seen of the Aspen system, its just a fancy display of airspeed, altitude, heading and output from the nav radios that we're already using.

[airdale]

They are doing some extensive upgrades to our existing 172s

Good.  In most parts of the country, the 172/180s are better airplanes for the SAR mission anyway.  Hopefully they will not pork them up like the 182s with heavy avionics, exploding seat belts, and other toys and irrelevant garbage.  Beckers would be nice, though.

I honestly don't think the systems will cause the avionics mess you think they will in terms of requiring additional training and knowledge.

Probably true, but the criteria should be whether the Aspen life cycle costs will be less and whether they save weight.  For what we do, we don't need colored lights and toys.

(Not that the G1000 182s aren't fun.  I especially like the color tv with the NEXRAD and 4,000 country music stations.  But they are long haul cross-country airplanes, something CAP doesn't do.)

[JGremlin]

I honestly don't think the systems will cause the avionics mess you think they will in terms of requiring additional training and knowledge.

Probably true, but the criteria should be whether the Aspen life cycle costs will be less and whether they save weight.  For what we do, we don't need colored lights and toys.

(Not that the G1000 182s aren't fun.  I especially like the color tv with the NEXRAD and 4,000 country music stations.  But they are long haul cross-country airplanes, something CAP doesn't do.)

Well, I'm a fan of flying behind an HSI whether it be navigating VFR (such when conducting a search) or when navigating on an IFR flight plan. I think its just a better and safer instrument to navigate off of and most biz jet manufacturers seem to agree with me. Given that most (probably all?? of our 172s currently lack an HSI, I'd say the Aspen system would a good choice both in terms of system cost and in terms of system weight when compared to adding that capability via the installation of a mechanical HSI. I think its safe to say that we would not be looking at adding HSI capability if this technology didn't exist, but since it does exist, I think it's a wise choice that will make the planes easier to fly and therefore safer to operate.

[airdale]

I'm a fan of flying behind an HSI

Me, too.

a wise choice that will make the planes easier to fly and therefore safer to operate.

I think the advantages of an HSI are pretty marginal given the near-zero amount of single-pilot hard IFR that these airplanes fly.  I don't know that the costs are comparable, but IMHO a simple STEC-20 autopilot would contribute much more to safety than an HSI.  With proper training, it could reduce the risks of a JFK Jr. type situation or a VFR-into-IMC loss of control.

I'd say the Aspen system would a good choice both in terms of system cost and in terms of system weight

It's an unproven system, but it would seem that eliminating the cost of the AI and the DG, including recurring replacement, might be an argument.  Which is heavier, I don't know.  The Aspen includes a battery, so there may be no weight advantage.

[es_g0d]

More important than "zero time" would be a standard configuration across the fleet.  There are far too many variations right now.

[Gunner C]

More important than "zero time" would be a standard configuration across the fleet.  There are far too many variations right now.

That would be key.  The problem would be the time lag - by the time the next round of aircraft are sent for upgrades, the cockpit displaysetup will almost certainly change.  Even AF aircraft cockpits vary within a model (not as much as it used to, tho).

[sparks]

Standardization really helps when airplanes move around in a state. It also reduces problems at exercises when pilots fly different airplanes. Several years ago CAP wisely updated most of the avionics panels with the GX55 GPS King radios and the PSI audio panel. It's infamous "swap switch" has been an issue with accidental activation. Since then the CAP FM has changed at least twice causing user issues. The G1000 is a story all by itself. Adding Avidyne or some other suite of instruments and/or avionics displays would be great but better done in targeted groups. Changing all the equipment in a wing or group could resolve the standardization complaint. It would be replaced by another [censored]. The one starting with, "why is that other wing getting the good stuff !!!!!".

One last note, if the acquisition committee is uninformed or operates on a whim none of this will matter.
Remember the steam gauge 182T acquisition?

[Mustang]

(Not that the G1000 182s aren't fun.  I especially like the color tv with the NEXRAD and 4,000 country music stations.  But they are long haul cross-country airplanes, something CAP doesn't do.)

Clearly, you're not from out west--where it can take 2+ hrs just to reach your assigned grid.  Another 2.5 hrs in-grid is not unreasonable for mountainous terrain, plus the trip home, and you're then looking at a minimum endurance requirement of 7.5 hrs (including CAP-required reserve).  Don't try that in a 172.

[sparks]

Absolutelly, georgraphy matters. Yes, us flatlanders have fewer problems using a 172 or normal aspirated 182 compared to state with higher elevations. We also need long legged aircraft like you. Anyone who has flown in the backseat of a 172 and 182 for hours will always pick the 182 given the choice. The acquisition question is whether to remanufacture older aircraft or buy new. New, G1000 aircraft are expensive and come with qualification and training problems. It's expensive to remain current and proficient with that electronic suite. I'd like to see standardization but don't expect that will be happening.