My wing commander mentioned that CAP is considering taking a number of older (ie. non-SPs) C-172s out of our fleet and having them basically zero-timed: New engine & prop, complete strip down, airframe inspection & repair, interior, electrical and avionics removal and replacement, etc.
(I have to check what he mentioned, but he said that the consideration is for installing a "half-glass" cockpit, an "Aspen"?)
Anybody know anything about this? My sq's 172 is our wing's oldest 172, so we're a primo candidate (barring any damage or corrosion exceeding the refurbishment criteria..)
This may have been what he was referring to as far as the avionics.
http://www.aspenavionics.com/index.php/products/evolutionoverview (http://www.aspenavionics.com/index.php/products/evolutionoverview)
That plan was presented by General Chitwood at our wing conference in October, to great acclaim. The rationale is that they can upgrade 3-4 172s for the cost of a new 182. The panel they showed was a hybrid steam/glass panel similar to the one shown above.
There was a PowerPoint presentation on the proposal; I imagine that your wing commander can get it if he asks for it.
No official info, but that is what I heard will happen to one of our C-172s that has gone away. Seems like a good idea to me.
Heard the same thing.
First I've heard of this, but I think this would be a good call, and allow us to be even better stewards of the finances we have, especially since, if the economy continues to decline, CAP may find it's funding becoming cut more and more.
I actually think putting glass into the C172 is a very VERY bad idea. CAP is having enough trouble getting members qualified in the C182 G1000 Nav III. Right now the instructors must go to the Cessna factory and get trained on the new airframe before they can give the G1000 class. Most wings have 1 or 2 of these classes available to the members per year! If CAP wants to add another glass systems it will make mass confusion. Anyone who flys glass can tell you that is hard enough remembering where the not so common used features are in the system. When you add 2 systems it makes the problem even greater.
I fly the G1000 and the Avidyne system with 40 hours in the G1000 and almost 200 in the Avidyne and I still have to review them quickly before a flight if I haven't flown one or the other in a week or two.
Yes you can do the basic stuff however when your shooting a instrument approach into a unknown airport at minims at night you don't have time to be trying to remember what button you need to push to cycle the GPS for example.
I would like to see CAP go with a G600 if they want a glass PFD/MDF or keep the steam gauges and put in a Garmin 430 or 530 both of which are very easy to learn and use if you know the G1000 and vice versa.
Just my 3 cents as a pilot who actually flys this stuff. (yes 3 cents...inflation)
Quote from: caprr275 on December 11, 2008, 05:38:37 AM
I actually think putting glass into the C172 is a very VERY bad idea. CAP is having enough trouble getting members qualified in the C182 G1000 Nav III. Right now the instructors must go to the Cessna factory and get trained on the new airframe before they can give the G1000 class. Most wings have 1 or 2 of these classes available to the members per year! If CAP wants to add another glass systems it will make mass confusion. Anyone who flys glass can tell you that is hard enough remembering where the not so common used features are in the system. When you add 2 systems it makes the problem even greater.
I fly the G1000 and the Avidyne system with 40 hours in the G1000 and almost 200 in the Avidyne and I still have to review them quickly before a flight if I haven't flown one or the other in a week or two.
Yes you can do the basic stuff however when your shooting a instrument approach into a unknown airport at minims at night you don't have time to be trying to remember what button you need to push to cycle the GPS for example.
I would like to see CAP go with a G600 if they want a glass PFD/MDF or keep the steam gauges and put in a Garmin 430 or 530 both of which are very easy to learn and use if you know the G1000 and vice versa.
Just my 3 cents as a pilot who actually flys this stuff. (yes 3 cents...inflation)
Good points! Steam gauge is probably the way to go. However, having C-172 2.0s would be an enormous savings in money and retraining time. Dollars are going to become short - budgets are going to go away in the next two to three years. Anything we can do right now would be a good move.
Big AF has upgraded their A-10 airframes (what percentage I'm not sure) and has saved billions on a new aircraft. We should do the same. I can't imagine a 200 aircraft fleet.
There's probably a font-end cost: since we wouldn't sell an airframe before buying a new one, thus using the "sale value" to finance part of the cost of a new C-182. But I imagine we'd be getting three for the price of two. You'd have to do some figuring on the full financial impact. But I suspect it would be a net savings.
I wonder what the turn around would be. Surely it would be far less than one aircraft per wing per year.
Gunner
Glass or no glass, since a lot of the older 172's are older and are in need of it, refurbishing is a good idea to keep more flying aircraft in the CAP. I've read right here on this board about a junk piper cub being donated, and a squadron rebuilding it to flying status. Perhaps CAP, or more squadrons can do some research on having more opportunities to learn and do the work themselves, which will cut down on cost. This would not only be great knowledge, but great experience and pride.
If not, it's still a cheaper way to have as many aircraft in flying condition as CAP can, without the cost of purchasing new planes. But, I think there's a lot of possibilities there.
Another thing to consider:
Buying a new 172 is considered a bad idea due to cost, etc. Its just not as good an investment as, say, a 182 or a 206.
But 172s are necessary in our fleet. Not everybody who walks in the door is HP/complex qualified and can jump right into a 182. Let alone a G1000 equipped 182.
And 172s are used for instruction. And they make pretty good sense for cadet orientation flights.
My unit has a 172. We're fine with that. Occasionally we go fly one of the 182s in the wing. The wing is supposedly getting another G1000-equipped 182. We have something like 4 182s and 2 172s. Its getting to the point where the other squadrons are demanding our 172 for new pilot checkout, etc.
If CAP can refurb several of our 172 fleet for the cost of a new G1000 182, then yeah, I say its a good idea. Especially if its a zero-time overhaul. We get "like new" airplanes for "less than new" prices. I imagine the old 172s that will be inducted into this program are fully capitalized anyway, may as well put that full capitalized resource to good use thru reinvestment.
Refurbishing existing C172's are a great idea. The "glass" that is installed is the Aspen Avionics Pro PFD and a Garmin MX200 MFP powered by a GNS 430 and GS30 NavCom.
All the "steam" gauges are still in the aircraft for reference so, you don't have to worry about being overwhelmed with technology. And, since the aircraft has less sound proofing and the old style seats, payload is greater. A re-furbed C172 is still a 3 people aircraft. Oh, and BTW, we're going to refurbish existing C182's also.
QuoteRefurbishing existing C172's are [sic] a great idea. The "glass" that is installed is the Aspen Avionics Pro PFD and a Garmin MX200 MFP powered by a GNS 430 and GS30 NavCom.
Amen. The G1000 182s are a stupid airplane for CAP. They are cross-country machines and CAP airplanes hardly ever even leave their home time zone. Plus, as you said, they can't carry anything unless you use a dipstick to carefully fuel them below tabs/below 64 gallons. Even fueled to oly 40 gallons, many of the 40 gallon 172s will out-haul them and out-range them too.
The Aspen "thingie" in the middle is nice, too. Especially because you can turn off the silly tapes and use the conventional airspeed indicator and altimeter. Also because they don't rely on the vacuum pump.
Not sure I like losing the Apollo SAR capability, though. The 430 is a great box and I fly with them a lot, but any SAR capability to be added will probably be no better Garmin's lame SAR solution for the G1000.
Re caprr275's comment about the glass I agree and disagree. I agree that the G1000 is too complex for occasional users, but putting an Aspen AI and HSI in the panel is really not that big a departure from steam gauges. The MX200 will be an expensive distraction more than a useful tool, but the boys who make these decisions apparently must have their toys. How else to explain the G1000s?
We are refurbishing C-182's.
Makes sense: I think in the days of plenty, we developed a very high expectation of "A C-182T in every pot."
Rufurbishing makes $en$e, and still keeps fleet diversity: you don't need a 182 for every task that we do.
The switch to a G1000 fleet is a good thing from an aircraft managment perspective. I will disagree that the 182 is a bad aircraft. It has the better lift and range than the 172. The fuel has to be looked at for weight but that is common of most aircraft with a range of capabilities. I also like the G1000 182 for its lack of moving parts and better redundancy with the 2 screens. If NHQ would manage the fleet as a fleet and keep on hand spares like airlines do we could see better maintenance and servicability with the aircraft. Unfortunately I don't feel that this is the case.
As far as refurbing aircraft I think that it is a great idea. We certainly could see good benefits and long life with the aircraft we already have. The 172's have served us well and there still is a place for them in CAP. If we are refurbing them they need to be setup to be as similar as possible to each other as we can do. I would prefer to put the Garmin Glass into it for similiarity and for standardization but I can see that steam is good for many.
I see lots of people complain about glass and its benefits or lack of. Glass is here to stay. We have great challeges now because we are not fully committed to it and we don't have a truly functional training program. The materials we have are good but their implementaion is lacking. We have not reached critical mass for access to the aircraft for training. We rotate aircraft in our wing so getting access to the aircraft is not consistent.
John
Boy do I have to agree with Mr Jester....
Inconsistencies and work overloads to many including Wing staffers in DOV's
Inconsistencies of instructors who went to independence , KS and never really put a program together as planned.....
Many differences in many Wings and no real true standardization, this late in the game, across the board
Some Wings, early in the glass program ( circa 2005 and in Aviation Week and Space Technolgy) took the training program to heart and MOVED with it in a more SERIOUS sense and have to agree with the committment comment..
Independence, KS trained CFI's.... take note. The rest of C182 drivers were NOT lucky enough to get a good deal to pass the info on to the rest of the CAP G1000 community
The CAP organization would be well instructed to the words COMITTMENT. There are a FEW G1000 Instructors that fit that bill. Consistency between Wings lacks, also. This Program takes more than 1 person at Wing level to get this really off the ground. It take the folks that got trained at Independence, KS to train ALL aspiring G1000 driver NOT just the "in crowds", showing lack of consistency and committment
Well, I also see that in a lot of places, especially wings with the so-called "flying club squadron" the "new and shiny" glass 182 becomes a prize, a toy, a trophy. "Look at what we have."
Example, in my wing, we used to have a unit at an airport that was 4-5 miles from the border with another state. Fully 20-30 miles from even approaching the "center of gravity" of CAP in the state. Yet there were 2-3 planes stationed at that airport. (Nevermind that the Wing DO/DOV, and even the wing commander lived within 2-3 miles of said airport). GA-8? Yep. Glass 182? Yep. Maule towplane? Yep. Region 206? Uh huh.
Same thing happened when the 172SP showed up nice and shiny new. The crappy T-41 and the old 1985 or so 182 wound up "elsewhere" and the pretty new plane adorned the ramp of that airport for a considerable length of time.
"We need to get pilots checked out."
"Well, you need a special checkout for the SP"
"A special checkout? Its a 172.."
"Well, its a special 172..."
"So we can't have it here for a week to check pilots out?"
"No."
Then we got the first new 182 in the wing. The 172 SP lost its patina, but never its home, (the SP now plies the traderoutes around the state..) with its big brother aside it on the ramp.
Then the glass plane showed up.
And see, every time, the "old crappy planes" suddenly got pushed out to the other units. But the fancy-schmancy planes with the new paintjobs and the "new airplane smell" stayed at ONE airport.
Got there for awhile that I was considering stealing down to the airport (I worked near it) and stenciling a pilot's name on the door.
Quote from: NIN on December 12, 2008, 12:18:10 AM
And see, every time, the "old crappy planes" suddenly got pushed out to the other units.
Old crappy ones like this? : http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5544.msg106164#msg106164
as we wait months for repairs to get our new pilots checked out...
QuoteGot there for awhile that I was considering stealing down to the airport (I worked near it) and stenciling a pilot's name on the door.
That would be hillarious!
When the 182's started showinng up, there was much wailing and a gnashing of teeth.
"Now we have to take two check rides, and spend money for ticket upgrades..."
Some pilots refused to fly "anything but a 172..."
Then someone found out there were training funds available.
From there, units started fighting over who would get the 182's.
When the glass showed up by us, there was much wailing and a gnashing of teeth.
"Now we have to take three check rides, and spend money for ticket upgrades..."
Some pilots refused to fly "anything but steam gauges..."
Then someone found out there were training funds available.
From there, units started fighting over who would get the glass.
See a pattern?
Yes, there was pilot attrition, mostly with older pilots unwilling or unable to upgrade their tickets. Some sought out the 172's to maintain currency, some dropped to other aircrew positions (flying right-seat most of the time, which is a different conversation), some simply stopped flying for CAP.
And through it all we're flying more hours, with more active pilots, and more missions. The world did not come to an end.
Your wing's mileage hours may vary.
Our biggest problem is a concentration of pilots and flying hours in the urban centers, which means that the wing has to constantly rotate airframes in order to maintain the required hours on each one. The side effect is that our active pilots are familiar with everything in the fleet, which means they should be able to strap on whatever makes it to a mission base, and isn't that what we ultimately want?
A C-172 will be modified into a KC-172 for air to air refueling.
Quote from: Rob Goodman on December 12, 2008, 02:55:34 AM
A C-172 will be modified into a KC-172 for air to air refueling.
I swear I read somewhere that CAP was going to get O-2s from AMARC....
Quote from: NIN on December 12, 2008, 03:36:32 AM
Quote from: Rob Goodman on December 12, 2008, 02:55:34 AM
A C-172 will be modified into a KC-172 for air to air refueling.
I swear I read somewhere that CAP was going to get O-2s from AMARC....
Here? (http://www.geocities.com/cap7sos/) Or
here (http://122sos.freeservers.com/index.html)?
Like these?
(http://www.geocities.com/cap7sos/o2bcap.jpg)
(http://122sos.freeservers.com/images/122-skymaster.jpg)
Quote from: SarDragon on December 12, 2008, 05:05:26 AM
Quote from: NIN on December 12, 2008, 03:36:32 AM
Quote from: Rob Goodman on December 12, 2008, 02:55:34 AM
A C-172 will be modified into a KC-172 for air to air refueling.
I swear I read somewhere that CAP was going to get O-2s from AMARC....
Here? (http://www.geocities.com/cap7sos/) Or here (http://122sos.freeservers.com/index.html)?
Like these?
(http://www.geocities.com/cap7sos/o2bcap.jpg)
(http://122sos.freeservers.com/images/122-skymaster.jpg)
Great googly moogly.
Yeah
But that IS a machine
I've spent the last 2 hrs diggin' thru my hard drive to find an image I swore I had.
I really need to clean up my storage. I have 1.75TB of disk here and crap spread from hither and yon. Ugh.
I think this is the one I was looking for. I had right-click, save as... a bunch of images off one of these CAP sites a few years back.. . I can't seem to find any right now except for this one.
We used to have a guy here in CAWG who flew his O-2A on missions.
There was usually much moaning from Wing when he submitted his Form 108's.
You've probably seen this airplane, it was in a bunch of movies including a "starring" role in Bat 21.
And good luck finding any O-2's at AMRAC, just about all of them are down in Central and South America fighting the "War On Drugs".
Quote from: PHall on December 12, 2008, 06:53:32 AM
We used to have a guy here in CAWG who flew his O-2A on missions.
There was usually much moaning from Wing when he submitted his Form 108's.
You've probably seen this airplane, it was in a bunch of movies including a "starring" role in Bat 21.
And good luck finding any O-2's at AMRAC, just about all of them are down in Central and South America fighting the "War On Drugs".
Eh, there's at least a dozen.
Here (http://www.amarcexperience.com/AMARCDB.asp?SessionId=260071512&Command=Previous&Page=2&Code=O002&Include=3&SortOrder=1&Value=&Model=O002A&Type=3&Action=2) for more info.
Sounds like a good idea to refurb the 172s. Money is getting tight and who doesnt mind a flight in a 172...
My Squadron here in CAWG used to have five AT-6s all surplus, yep
we had USAAF jeeps , ambulances, Tow Trucks, MP unit (with MG mounts)
Squadron 35, Group 1
yep the F troop of the Sky >:D
USAF is still flying O-2's. Was one here two weeks ago along with 3 CAP 172's and a GA-8 on a missing person search. I have a photo of it with the GA-8, but everytime I try to include a picture i get the dreaded red X
here's another photo I right-clicked and saved from that @#$% website thats not there anymore...
I didn't think CAP was flying anymore O-1s, either, but there it was in full glory and with current (at the time) markings.
Quote from: NIN on March 05, 2009, 08:18:17 PM
here's another photo I right-clicked and saved from that @#$% website thats not there anymore...
What site is that?
That is not likely to be an actual CAP corporate plane, but probably one owned by a private individual flying it as historical exhibit. I assume you would need CAP permission for that.
Quote from: NIN on March 05, 2009, 08:18:17 PM
here's another photo I right-clicked and saved from that @#$% website thats not there anymore...
Would that be www.airliners.net ?
Quote from: davidsinn on March 05, 2009, 08:23:46 PM
Quote from: NIN on March 05, 2009, 08:18:17 PM
here's another photo I right-clicked and saved from that @#$% website thats not there anymore...
What site is that?
It was one of those "Special Operations" site that had the O-2s on it.
Quote from: NIN on March 06, 2009, 12:27:18 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on March 05, 2009, 08:23:46 PM
Quote from: NIN on March 05, 2009, 08:18:17 PM
here's another photo I right-clicked and saved from that @#$% website thats not there anymore...
What site is that?
It was one of those "Special Operations" site that had the O-2s on it.
Like here (http://122sos.freeservers.com/index.html)? or here (http://www.geocities.com/cap7sos/)?
I didn't see that pic on either site.
Quote from: SarDragon on March 07, 2009, 07:16:36 AMLike here (http://122sos.freeservers.com/index.html)? or here (http://www.geocities.com/cap7sos/)?
I didn't see that pic on either site.
No, it was neither of those, there was _another_ one thats not out there anymore. It was a LOT more extensive than those were, but I can't find it anyplace. I just tried the Internet Archive, but I can't even remember the URL.