Just wondering if LSA will ever have a place in CAP? With their low operating cost some of the types may be great for SAR and damage survey flights etc. Just a thought.
I would love to get my ultra light used for CAP. I am debating about mounting my CAP radio in it, I like to fly from the ranch to some of the SAREXS.
Did you put the CAP decal on the tail yet?
Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 06:58:09 PM
Just wondering if LSA will ever have a place in CAP? With their low operating cost some of the types may be great for SAR and damage survey flights etc. Just a thought.
Doutbtful. It's already cramped enough in a C-182 with some of our fluffier members, there's no way in hell you're gonna get a LSA off the ground with an effective crew.
Plus, you're still going to see the requirement for a PPL regardless.
Quote from: SJFedor on December 20, 2009, 07:37:18 PM...a C-182 with some of our fluffier members, there's no way in hell you're gonna get a LSA off the ground with an effective crew.
Hey.. I resemble that remark! Akuna Ma tata!
Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 06:58:09 PM
Just wondering if LSA will ever have a place in CAP? With their low operating cost some of the types may be great for SAR and damage survey flights etc. Just a thought.
They will have a place in CAP; As a fresh new source of barely qualified pilots creating lots of SAR missions and dents in the dirt....
Major Lord
I think a fixed wing LSA would have only very limited uses for CAP, such as being a highbird, since they can only have 1 or 2 person crews. I suppose you could use them for visual SAR, but since you would only have 1 effective observer it would take a lot more passes to thoroughly search an area. For electronic SAR I suppose they would work ok since most ELT missions only use a 2-person crew anyway, but that mission is rapidly dropping in importance, though eventually CAP may begin to pick up more PLB missions as those items become increasingly popular and the locals get tired of responding to them and become more interested in using CAP rather than a multi-hundred $/hour helicopter.
Very true about about the crew size, however I remember when we used a lot of 150/152 Cessna aircraft. I know the situation has changed but a 2 man crew is still effective and a lot of 172/182 missions are flown with 2 anyway. Also most of the LSA on the market have wider cabins than the old 150's. Plus it might widen the pilot base some. From a money stand point this would be worth exploring. Also most of the LSA can come with a total package....IFR...the works.
Back years ago, my Squadron built an Aerocopter. It was awesome, until it flew right into the side of the hangar.
As far as barley experienced pilots.....true in some cases....but where have you been. LSA are flown by some ATP guys. I personally know of an American 757 Captain that flys one. Also know personally a retired USAF full bird and ex test pilot that flys LSA.
The Sky Arrow 600 gives superb visibility. I understand from the 3I website that it was originally designed as an observation aircraft for NATO.
With the wings and engine above and behind the cockpit, the view is more like a helo than an airplane.
http://www.skyarrow.com/mainwebsite_html/eng_informazioni.htm
A local Sheriff's Dept here has a skyarrow. More cost effective than a helicopter and a good SAR and observation platform. Think something like that would be great for CAP. Also with our relationship with Cessna the new 162 would be worth looking at. More room than the 150.....better economy on fuel. Time to think outside the box. The high gadets are good...but it is back to basics to get the job done. Think the AF has learned that. F-22's are great....but low and slow kills insurgents much better. LSA would be much more effective for SAR...no doubt!
How can a two-seat airplane be more effective for visual SAR than a traditional CAP 3-person aircrew?
Even if we totally changed our aircrew training and told the pilot that part of his job is now visual search, a significant portion of his time is still going to be spent on flying the airplane. So, at best you would have maybe 1.25-1.5 people looking out the window rather than 2 people?
Riveraux
What's traditional about three place aircraft in CAP? For many-many years almost all CAP aircraft were two place, L-4, L-5, L-16 aircraft. And I doubt the find rate was any different than the current number of finds. Plus a lot cheaper to fly.
Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 11:22:15 PM
A local Sheriff's Dept here has a skyarrow. More cost effective than a helicopter and a good SAR and observation platform. Think something like that would be great for CAP. Also with our relationship with Cessna the new 162 would be worth looking at. More room than the 150.....better economy on fuel. Time to think outside the box. The high gadets are good...but it is back to basics to get the job done. Think the AF has learned that. F-22's are great....but low and slow kills insurgents much better. LSA would be much more effective for SAR...no doubt!
Our missions going forward are about tech and gear, not the Mark-I eyeball. Whether its ARCHER, SDIS, sensor package, or just plane 'ol
pics from the air, we need capacity for both crew and toys.
Then there's the fact that our aircraft are multi-role - basic transportation or our people, blood / organs, officials, victims (rarely), and of course O-Rides, all of which need more seats, not less.
The general move to 182's for that reason alone was a good idea, not to mention the advantages of the glass instrumentation.
There is little to no advantage of smaller airplanes with limited capacity, range and function beyond people who like those airplanes trying to make a case because they aren't rated for the bigger ones. That, or some dream that they could fly their POV for SAR.
We might as well start the annual discussion about ultralights.
Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 09:56:31 PM
As far as barley experienced pilots.....true in some cases....but where have you been. LSA are flown by some ATP guys. I personally know of an American 757 Captain that flys one. Also know personally a retired USAF full bird and ex test pilot that flys LSA.
Not representative of LSA pilots in general. Those are exceptions, not rules.
Quote from: BillB on December 21, 2009, 12:05:16 AM
What's traditional about three place aircraft in CAP? For many-many years almost all CAP aircraft were two place, L-4, L-5, L-16 aircraft. And I doubt the find rate was any different than the current number of finds.
Older aircraft and cheaper at the time. I would doubt the find rate was equivalent or better than our three person crews. Unless we have legitimate statistics with the proper numbers, we would probably never know.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 21, 2009, 12:10:51 AMWe might as well start the annual discussion about ultralights.
Is it actually yearly now? I missed it last year. Guess I was lucky.
As usual on here people go to the extreme. I was not talking about ditching the current fleet. For that matter more lifters are needed as well. In some cases a Cessna 208 would be great for CAP. When I said LSA might have a place I meant as a supplement. SAR. O flights, training etc as a cost effective platform. As far as traditional 3 man crew....that has only been in the 10 years or so maybe a little further back. The fleet was made up of 150s super cubs and even T-34As for many years. I have flown several missions with a 2 man crew worked fine then and can work again. There are safety concerns..yes. But we had very few accidents then as well.
QuoteBut we had very few accidents then as well.
Oh, I don't know about that at all. CAP's accident rate is lower now than back in those days. Not saying anything about why that is, but its true.
But, I suppose BillB is right about our "traditional" aircraft. But at least for the last 20 years or so, 4-seaters have dominated CAP.
Now don't get me wrong, I think that LSA are cool, and will make flying slightly more affordable for one class of aviators, and allow another class ( those who busted FAA physicals, etc) to get in the cockpit once again. ( Like the above mentioned ATP and retired Col mentioned above) More airplanes with elderly pilots, high blood pressures, and bad tickers, as well as lots of newbie pilots, will translate to more missions for CAP. I know that the original post was meant to suggest that these aircraft would serve CAP well as a low-cost (kind of) ship, but I think we all know that that is just not going to happen. Ever. You may as well dream of CAP helicopters and Paramedics.
Major Lord
ps. My post number of 666 today does not mean I am in league with Satan.... We're just friends.
The above mentioned ATP has not "busted a medical" he is current. He is still employed and 10 years from retirement. He flys 757 for $$ and owns an LSA as well as a Mooney Ranger.Too many stereaotype LSA and the pilots that fly them without any hands on knowledge of same. I had an FBO owner call them toys and not real airplanes....what an idiot..on his ramp he has 3 Cessna 150's that he rents out for instruction. They are just about 100 lbs Gross more than an LSA and have less HP in the nose than LSA. Oh and the retired full bird...don't let the retired word make you draw conclusions.....he is only 45 and retired last year....no bad ticker....no busted medical....hr also owns a 1943 Stearman PT-17.
Getting defensive about these "toys" isn't going to change our opinion. There's barely enough room in the cockpit of a 160 blow your nose.
If you like them, fly them, I'm sure they are a lot of fun, but expecting CAP to adopt an a/c that requires you take your wallet out of your back pocket so you don't hit your head on the ceiling is just not reasonable.
No a bit defensive....just don't want 2 active professional pilots to be lumped in with guys that can't pass a medical or are unsafe. Just educating the masses that many pilots fly LSA. Oh well shouldn't even have brought it up.
I didn't see mentioned either.. the performance specs for every LSA are practically the same.
Max gross ramp weight, landplane, 1320 lbs. seaplane, 1430 lbs.
Max stall speed 45 kts.
Max seating 2
Fixed speed, or ground adjustable prop only, and it's probably made of wood or composite.
Fixed gear unless it's a seaplane.
As well, I seem to recall a max fuel capacity of 24 gallons. Pile on 60-1 and that aircraft can't even get off the ground. That was the problem with the Maul. 18 lbs of paint, all the CAP 'junque' and pilots hated them as the range/airborne time was severely limited, despite it making a nice platform with plenty of view.
I researched this at length last night and have a theory. How about a tandem configuration with a "photo window" on both sides? 2 man crew working extremely efficiently. Looks like the Sky Arrow 600 Sport would be an ideal platform:
http://www.trevesgroup.com/giottoair/skyarrow/documents/SA600_Datasheet.pdf
I saw an article a while back mentioning the Sky Arrow as a low cost aerial alternative for various Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Agencies. I think the stock engine is 100Hp. I would add another 10 hp and call is a pretty good surveillance platform albeit lacking in the night vision dept.
A two man crew may work for an electronic search but anything else needs a crew of three. If the back seater is taking pictures and recording all the required parameters the mission will be long, have multiple passes or incomplete.
Another issue is the girth of many pilots and crewmen, not well suited for the LSA. Sure we should all be in shape but that isn't the current membership profile. Just look at the last conferance pictures in Texas (seniors not cadets). As mentioned before, add in the CAP specific gear and the useful load takes a hit.
Yes, the military used modified Tailorcrafts in WWII and I think Korea for liaison and observation missions. I don't think going backwards 50 years would fix any of CAP's mission problems.
Let's see... aircraft I have seen used at missions since ...oh...1979. C172, C182, Beech Baron, Beech Staggerwing, Piper Super Cub, Kachina Varga, O-1/L-19 Birddog, C150, C152, Citabria, Cherokee Six and a Cessna Citation I. These are jast the ones I remember.
How absurd LSA's, really?! We should be looking into upgrading the fleet into more capable aircraft with better useful loads. Not moving towards those 100hp strap-on airplanes. Give me a break. Now don't get me wrong, I love hand proping my old 80hp Aeronca Champ and going for a low and slow cruise, but its not the sort of plane that CAP should invest in.
We should look at upgrading to the 206, its a great airplane. They're easy to fly and we would be better able to accommodate you "fluffier" types and the tech toys we'll be using going forward.
Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 06:58:09 PM
Just wondering if LSA will ever have a place in CAP? With their low operating cost some of the types may be great for SAR and damage survey flights etc. Just a thought.
I think it's possible. Perhaps not in the near future, but I think UAV technology may eventually render mission observers and scanners obsolete. And if you have such a sensor package, AND fuel prices double or triple from what they are today?
Yeah, I think it would be silly to outright dismiss the idea that LSAs could, some day, have a place in CAP.
Quote from: N Harmon on December 22, 2009, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 06:58:09 PM
Just wondering if LSA will ever have a place in CAP? With their low operating cost some of the types may be great for SAR and damage survey flights etc. Just a thought.
I think it's possible. Perhaps not in the near future, but I think UAV technology may eventually render mission observers and scanners obsolete. And if you have such a sensor package, AND fuel prices double or triple from what they are today?
Yeah, I think it would be silly to outright dismiss the idea that LSAs could, some day, have a place in CAP.
Kind of like the Surrogate Pred but something akin to the Israeli Aircraft Industries POP 300 sensor package from the Shadow UAV. 10 1/2 in diameter by 15 in high ball assembly. Probably less than 80 LBS behind the back seat for the ball and associated electronics. (ALL this is open source so don't throw the OPSEC flag) On top of that the imagery can be sent directly to the ground. The show stopper for now is the $250,000 (not sure about the accuracy of the price but definitely high) price tag. Time should see the price come down though I'm sure it will take a long time.
Making the leap from an LSA to a UAV is huge! If CAP liquidated all of its' aircraft assets and had a UAV package to do CAP missions maybe it could be done. An expensive electronics package with superior detection capability compared to a Becker or the Mk1 eyeball might be worthwhile. Training and operational expenses become an issue along with no need for many CAP pilots. Is it a pipe dream, maybe not? Several years ago who would have thought the Air Force would be training pilots to fly out of a climate controlled trailer via satellite link!
Of course cadet O-rides are difficult in a UAV.
Quote from: EMT-83 on December 23, 2009, 04:01:00 AM
Of course cadet O-rides are difficult in a UAV.
I bet a cadet weened on X-Box can fly a UAV better than a 2000 hour CFII >:D
A simple change to 60-1 would fix the "O" ride issue if CAP didn't have 172/182 aircraft. That regulation seems to be changed every January so one more amendment would be normal. The change would be to allow "O" rides in CAP member owned aircraft if approved by a wing commander. That also could be a good idea if CAP aircraft are out of range of the ferry flight matrix (X number of cadets per hour of ferry time).
Quote from: twofivexray on December 20, 2009, 10:55:09 PM
The Sky Arrow 600 gives superb visibility. I understand from the 3I website that it was originally designed as an observation aircraft for NATO.
With the wings and engine above and behind the cockpit, the view is more like a helo than an airplane.
http://www.skyarrow.com/mainwebsite_html/eng_informazioni.htm
The Sky Arrow, bah ;)
What you want is a twin engine LSA that can climb 1,500 fpm, do 300 fpm on one engine, have an open cockpit so you can take those all important pictures, a nice low cruise speed of 50-100 mph (Can you imagine the POD at that speed), six hour endurance, high wing, and a 640 lb useful load! And of course the most important feature of conventional gear!
Maybe we can be issued some USAF Flight helmets or WWII flying goggles.
It was designed for the National Geographic Society for flying in the Congo. Only $110,000 plus paint!
Check it out at http://www.aircam.com/index.htm
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_LgWE2_-txJ8/SzUek0LrE7I/AAAAAAAACUs/IoZj2IC_nDo/s800/Air%20Cam.jpg)
Wayyyyyyyy COOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!! 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
I was at Harris Ranch with the CAWG DOV six months ago, and there were two AirCams there. A most impressive beast from the ground. One had a GNS-430W for GPS, and it looked like it had a ton of room.
They look like they're real nice aircraft except for two little "problems".
They're homebuilts and they're taildraggers. The 60-1 has a problem with that.
Quote from: Amelia Earhart SQ on December 25, 2009, 08:29:46 PM
Quote from: twofivexray on December 20, 2009, 10:55:09 PM
The Sky Arrow 600 gives superb visibility. I understand from the 3I website that it was originally designed as an observation aircraft for NATO.
With the wings and engine above and behind the cockpit, the view is more like a helo than an airplane.
http://www.skyarrow.com/mainwebsite_html/eng_informazioni.htm
The Sky Arrow, bah ;)
What you want is a twin engine LSA that can climb 1,500 fpm, do 300 fpm on one engine, have an open cockpit so you can take those all important pictures, a nice low cruise speed of 50-100 mph (Can you imagine the POD at that speed), six hour endurance, high wing, and a 640 lb useful load! And of course the most important feature of conventional gear!
Maybe we can be issued some USAF Flight helmets or WWII flying goggles.
It was designed for the National Geographic Society for flying in the Congo. Only $110,000 plus paint!
Check it out at http://www.aircam.com/index.htm
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_LgWE2_-txJ8/SzUek0LrE7I/AAAAAAAACUs/IoZj2IC_nDo/s800/Air%20Cam.jpg)
I see you have the fat boy as close to the CG as possible. ;) That looks like fun - kinda windy, though. I'll have to pull out my high altitude warmies. Cold and wind are not my friends. ;D
Quote from: Amelia Earhart SQ on December 26, 2009, 06:03:45 AM
I was at Harris Ranch with the CAWG DOV six months ago, and there were two AirCams there. A most impressive beast from the ground. One had a GNS-430W for GPS, and it looked like it had a ton of room.
You shoulda given me a call!!! I go with the tri-tip sandwich myself. Never disappointed.
I'm itching to go again... Perhaps you can meet me there with your shiny new G-1000 :P