Future CAP fleet

[Mustang]

Was perusing Cessna's website this afternoon whilst searching for the latest Skylane PIM PDF (which they seem to have removed) and noted a few things that raise concerns for CAP's future fleet needs.

With Cessna soon ceasing production of avgas-powered Skylanes and all future Jet-A powered Skylanes being turbocharged versions with a max useful load of just 1018 lbs (before all of CAP's modifications are added), I believe the Skylane's usefulness in CAP may be nearing an end. Problem is, regaining lost useful load/utility means stepping up to the Stationair, which--although a phenomenal aircraft that is well-suited (dare I say *ideally*) for our needs--comes with a fairly hefty pricetag increase over the Skylane. (For the record, all future Stationairs will be turbocharged as well, from what I gather on Cessna's site.)

What this means for CAP's future fleet size is certainly anyone's guess, though I suppose the bottom line is whatever Congress/the AF are willing to pay for. 

Thoughts?

[cap235629]

go to LSA's set up in tandem and equip them with good avionics, become a 2 man aircrew and drive on....

[BFreemanMA]

Depending on the age of some of our current a/c, I imagine we'd be good for (perhaps) a few decades. However, I'm no mechanic, but we might get a little tight on parts as I imagine an engine designed to run on avgas would be slightly different from another.

I don't think CAP will be thinking about this any time soon, but you raise a good point regarding the pricetag.

[Eclipse]

Was perusing Cessna's website this afternoon whilst searching for the latest Skylane PIM PDF (which they seem to have removed)

Is this what you need?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9817402/skylane_pim.pdf

[Mustang]

go to LSA's set up in tandem and equip them with good avionics, become a 2 man aircrew and drive on....

Just a hunch here, but you sound like a flat lander. LSAs are useless around these parts, where we have cumulo-granite rising to over 14,000 ft.

Also keep on mind the occasional requirement to carry airborne repeaters, transport equipment/personnel/search dog teams, etc. that an LSA just couldn't hack.

Depending on the age of some of our current a/c, I imagine we'd be good for (perhaps) a few decades.

I don't think CAP will be thinking about this any time soon, but you raise a good point regarding the pricetag.

It could be sooner than you think; my wing still has a few 30 year old R models and even a Q model that are getting long in the tooth.

[Mustang]

Is this what you need?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9817402/skylane_pim.pdf

Almost. I think there may be a more recent version, was trying to verify that. Thanks, though.

[cap235629]

This is what I had in mind

[LGM30GMCC]

Looks like a nice aircraft, but 556lb useful load? If you have two me-sized SM's then we would still have about 300lbs of useful load. Two more 'average' SMs and you may not get off the ground with full fuel.

Granted one could make arguments that maybe we should consider H/W requirements for pilots to have a greater useful load in our aircraft to begin with. (A complaint in at least some wings I've been in is that 'We can't carry a 3 person aircrew because we have to shave fuel' Funny how they blame the aircraft...not the operators...

But I digress. Realistically that kind of aircraft just isn't suited to CAP needs in the higher elevation states.

[Mustang]

PCR has a 60 hp per occupant requirement, you'd get a crew of slightly over 1.5 people with that one.

[SarDragon]

PCR has a 60 hp per occupant requirement, you'd get a crew of slightly over 1.5 people with that one.

I pretty sure that went away a few years ago. That policy isn't in any current PCR supplement.

[PHall]

Yeah, that little two seater might work in the flatter places like the Midwest and places like Florida.
But from Denver west, they're useless.

[Thrashed]

LSA's are worthless everywhere. No useful load, unless 10 gallons is enough. 

[bflynn]

It's an interesting question.  The issue of avgas going away eventually still isn't solved, so it would seem to me to be premature for Cessna to switch to a Jet-A powered engine, especially if Jet-A produces an inferior airplane.

I've heard talk about NCWG getting a Cessna 210, but I've been largely out of the loop for the past 2-3 months because of work and family issues.

[vento]

With the budget being the way it is nowadays, I foresee a lot of retrofit with G-500 to our existing fleet of round dials airplanes that are still in decent airframe shape. If I am not mistaken, there were quite a few retrofit exercises throughout the country with Aspen or Garmin. I've ridden in a C-206 retrofitted with G-500 in CAWG and it is actually really nice.

I just don't know what will happen to the old and high time C182Q that we still have in the fleet. The airframe are noticeably in worse shape than the newer airplanes, some doors don't even close fully anymore. Not sure how we can replace those...

[FW]

From what I've heard, the new C182s will cost over $750k each.  With the cost and reduced payload capabilities, HQ has decided to keep the current fleet running with an extensive refurb program.  I think one or two new C182s will be purchased; along with one or two C206s each year (depending on requirements), to keep our friends in Kansas happy. 

[NIN]

It's an interesting question.  The issue of avgas going away eventually still isn't solved, so it would seem to me to be premature for Cessna to switch to a Jet-A powered engine, especially if Jet-A produces an inferior airplane.

Well, AvGas going away is likely to loom higher and higher on everybody's radar as time goes on. 100LL is eventually doomed, its just a matter of what date goes on the tombstone.

That said, knowing the replacement cycle / longevity for airframes, it makes sense to get some Jet-A powered rides into the pipeline now.

Sadly, however, the reduction in gross weight probably doesn't hit Joe Aviator quite as hard as it hits us due to our specific mission requirements.

It might make sense over the longer term to consider the "how" of eyeball SAR/DR and consider things like high-resolution sensor packages and such.  Maybe the right answer in the future is a 2-place plane with two organic flight control actuators up front, and 4 folks sitting at a mission base watching/managing the data feed, instead of trying to jam 4 guys in a plane that has the useful payload for 2.5 after fuel.

If that looks like it *might* be the future for *some* of our missions, then it might make sense to transition part of our fleet to diesel/Jet-A powered birds on a replacement basis, re-allocate aircraft, throw some bones to the 206 fleet, or even, *gasp* consider PT-6 powered Jet-A burners.

From what I've heard, the new C182s will cost over $750k each.  With the cost and reduced payload capabilities, HQ has decided to keep the current fleet running with an extensive refurb program.  I think one or two new C182s will be purchased; along with one or two C206s each year (depending on requirements), to keep our friends in Kansas happy.

Tell our friends in Kansas to stop making the @#$% plane so @#$% heavy!

[Luis R. Ramos]

...or ask senior members to lay off the pizzas, donuts, and cheese fries?

Flyer

[Eclipse]

"AVGAS" is not going away, 100LL is being phased out.  There are a number of alternatives being tested, several which have already met or exceeded the
required specs.

The sky is not falling on GA.

[NIN]

"AVGAS" is not going away, 100LL is being phased out.  There are a number of alternatives being tested, several which have already met or exceeded the
required specs.

The sky is not falling on GA.

Good point. 100LL will likely go away at some point, but not AvGas in general.

[Critical AOA]

With Cessna soon ceasing production of avgas-powered Skylanes and all future Jet-A powered Skylanes being turbocharged versions

Unless something has changed, the JT-A is only replacing the turbo 182 not the normally aspirated version.

[NIN]

Looks like "normally aspirated" Skyhawks are going away in favor of the JT-A

[PHall]

...or ask senior members to lay off the pizzas, donuts, and cheese fries?

Flyer

Stereotype much?

[Critical AOA]

...or ask senior members to lay off the pizzas, donuts, and cheese fries?

Flyer

Stereotype much?

No doubt.  I hate donuts.

[Critical AOA]

Looks like "normally aspirated" Skyhawks are going away in favor of the JT-A

I have not heard anything in regards to the Skyhawk going away.  Also, last year when the JT-A was first announced, I am certain that the articles said that only the T182 was being replaced.  That must have changed or I misread. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Oh yeah.

All cops receive free donuts from corner stores. And take free apples from those markets which have their fruits and vegetables open on display.

Library teachers are old ladies wearing their hair on buns and going "Shhhh!" all the time.

And PHall can never take jokes, the same jokes which others in this medium give out. In high school, PHall was the bully pickingon all others.

Flyer

[Cliff_Chambliss]

I feel there is still a lot of life left in the Cessna 100 series aircraft.  Before closing the Maxwell AFB Aero Club had a T-41A (Cessna 172G) that had more than 17,000 hours on the airframe and was still a very nice flying plane (in spite of having only 145hp).  After the club closed that airplane was sold at auction and the new owner "fixed" it.  Gone through from end to end and top to bottom, and then an STC for a 180hp engine, new interior, Aspen Panel, new paint, completely re-rigged, and today that plane looks and flies like a brand new machine and still for a fraction of what a new plane would cost. 

[bflynn]

...or ask senior members to lay off the pizzas, donuts, and cheese fries?

Flyer

Sure.  And that would leave...what, 30% of the current SM members left?  If you don't want us around, we definately have other things to do.

[NIN]

I remembered a discussion I had with an esteemed CAP friend of mine (who is a Wing Commander) on this very subject.

The bare Skylane numbers, as I recall, are for the most recent production C-182

Skylane - 937NM - 145 Kts - 4 seats - 1,142 lbs - $398K
Skylane JT-A - 1360NM - 4 seats - 1,018 lbs - $515K

1142 - 1018 = 124 lbs (1 small SM or one semi-large cadet)

The range difference is 423NM. That's about 3.5 hrs at a comfortable cruise (CAP very seldom has the need to use the 937NM range of the 182, let alone 1360, which, from the center of the country, allows a radius of action that encompasses both coasts!)

The JT-A burns 11gph at 90% power (mind you, I'm not a pilot, so I don't know if 90% power is cruise in the JT-A or not, but I'm betting it is, or its at least close).

By my "back of the envelope" calculations, thats 35-38 gal of Jet-A.  Jet-A is, what, 6.7 or 6.8 lbs / gal?  So 38 gal of Jet-A is 256lbs.  So you gain back the 124 lbs plus another 132 lbs.

So don't fly the thing with full tanks when the mission parameters dictate.

Tempest in a teapot.

[A.Member]

Annual flight hours reportedly continue to decline across the organization.   So, the greater concern is addressing this problem and keeping the aircraft we have as opposed to figuring out what airframe might meet our need a few decades from now. 

FWIW, agree with the earlier comment on LSA's - they are pretty worthless to us, regardless of where you're located.  UAV's anyone?

[LGM30GMCC]

Bah, forget the 206s, let's go on up to the 208s  :clap: Plenty of useful load, can throw in plenty of sensor packages, and in a pinch could airlift small ground teams to remote stretches and leave 'em there. 

[PHall]

Bah, forget the 206s, let's go on up to the 208s  :clap: Plenty of useful load, can throw in plenty of sensor packages, and in a pinch could airlift small ground teams to remote stretches and leave 'em there. 

They only cost about $2.1 million each!

[Mustang]

The C-208 (Caravan) isn't terribly practical for CAP costwise, but the Quest Kodiak might be! Is essentially a better-engineered Gippsland with a PT6 turboprop engine and dual G1000 setup. Very nice aircraft. 

But honestly, I'm happy settling for a turbo 206.

[Critical AOA]

The C-208 (Caravan) isn't terribly practical for CAP costwise, but the Quest Kodiak might be! Is essentially a better-engineered Gippsland with a PT6 turboprop engine and dual G1000 setup. Very nice aircraft. 

But honestly, I'm happy settling for a turbo 206.

Thank you for your sacrifice.   

[A.Member]

Anything that gets away from the 172/182 negatively impacts our value proposition.  Who's going to maintain proficiency, especially at the higher rates?  Again, we're having trouble just putting hours on the most common airframe in GA.  We need to stay focused on core competencies.  And any oddball aircraft, such as the Gippsland (or Kodiak et al) is just....well, no!

[Brad]

Granted I'm not as up to speed on the performance and maintainability of the 182 as I need to be, being "only" a Mission Observer, but I did find this:

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-introduces-jet-skylane

"Cessna's Turbo 182 NXT delivers a solution that the marketplace has been asking for," said Jeff Umscheid, Cessna 172, 182, 206 business leader. "The 230-horsepower jet-A engine offers customers increased range and greater payload capacity and does not sacrifice performance. This plane offers significantly lower direct operating costs due to the fact that jet-A fuel is typically more affordable and much more widely available."

[Eclipse]

I don't know about that "more available" comment, especially in smaller GA airports.

[SarDragon]

FWIW, all three of our local GA airports have Jet-A. SEE, MYF, and SDM. Primary runways exceed 4500'.

[BillB]

At all area airports I've seen, Jet-A is more expensive than 100-LL av gas.

[Critical AOA]

At all area airports I've seen, Jet-A is more expensive than 100-LL av gas.

That is a rarity.  Where are you at?

[JeffDG]

I don't know about that "more available" comment, especially in smaller GA airports.

Also consider that outside North America, 100LL is much more difficult to find.  Jet-A is everywhere worldwide.

[Eclipse]

I don't know about that "more available" comment, especially in smaller GA airports.

Also consider that outside North America, 100LL is much more difficult to find.  Jet-A is everywhere worldwide.

Anecdotally interesting, but not really relevent to CAP, nor the average 3-x's a year restaurant-running GA pilot.

[NorCal21]

Does anyone know what the estimated current fleet age is?

[JeffDG]

Does anyone know what the estimated current fleet age is?

That should be derivable from WMIRS data if I had access to it all, both in terms of years old and TTAF, rather than estimating.

[Eclipse]

In my wing, across 9 aircraft, it is 18.5 years old average.

The 172's are all in the 27-28 range, and the 182's, except for one, are 10 or under.

The oldest plane we have is 31 years old, and the newest is 4.

[NIN]

http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html

JetA is, approximately, $.60 a gal cheaper on a national average.  At my local airpatch (just seen about 2 hrs ago) JetA is $5.95, 100LL was $6.00.  A nickel ain't much.

[Critical AOA]

I don't know about that "more available" comment, especially in smaller GA airports.

Also consider that outside North America, 100LL is much more difficult to find.  Jet-A is everywhere worldwide.

Exactly!  This is one of the prime factors driving not only Cessna but other aircraft manufacturers to pursue Jet-A powered diesels for GA aircraft.  North America is not their only market. 

[NorCal21]

In my wing, across 9 aircraft, it is 18.5 years old average.

The 172's are all in the 27-28 range, and the 182's, except for one, are 10 or under.

The oldest plane we have is 31 years old, and the newest is 4.

Wow. So some are pretty old. Now, as a relative newb to the air side are those "old" aircraft? Clearly they're not new, but as they similar to an 76 Datsun for instance? What's a good number for an age of an aircraft in that we'd want and not saying its brand new.

[SarDragon]

In my wing, across 9 aircraft, it is 18.5 years old average.

The 172's are all in the 27-28 range, and the 182's, except for one, are 10 or under.

The oldest plane we have is 31 years old, and the newest is 4.

Wow. So some are pretty old. Now, as a relative newb to the air side are those "old" aircraft? Clearly they're not new, but as they similar to an 76 Datsun for instance? What's a good number for an age of an aircraft in that we'd want and not saying its brand new.

I used to drive a '76 Datsun. It had issues. Most aircraft are much more well built, and maintained. Old is relative. As long as the required periodic maintenance is done, and the pilots follow good flying practices, there's no reason to arbitrarily get rid of older airframes. I think the biggest reason for getting rid of older CAP planes is that the engines have timed out for complete overhaul. Someone jump with more info if you have it.

[NorCal21]

I used to drive a '76 Datsun. It had issues. Most aircraft are much more well built, and maintained. Old is relative. As long as the required periodic maintenance is done, and the pilots follow good flying practices, there's no reason to arbitrarily get rid of older airframes. I think the biggest reason for getting rid of older CAP planes is that the engines have timed out for complete overhaul. Someone jump with more info if you have it.

OK, so what you're saying is age really doesn't matter so much as what the maintenance cost is to a cost/return basis. OK. Makes sense really. My old squadron had a G8. It was pretty cool actually, but holy crap old. I actually had the least amount of air sickness I've ever had flying in that because I was backwards. I don't get air sick in general, but if my sinuses start to drain they usually drain to the stomach versus being spit out and then you get some nausea going on.

Any suggestion for that?

[SarDragon]

I use ginger. Either gum, or candied. Trader Joe's has some dark chocolate covered stuff that's great.

[Critical AOA]

OK, so what you're saying is age really doesn't matter so much as what the maintenance cost is to a cost/return basis. OK. Makes sense really. My old squadron had a G8. It was pretty cool actually, but holy crap old.

The GippsAero GA8, which I assume you are referring to, was first produced in 2000 which makes the oldest ones currently 13 years old.  I would not even call that old, let alone "holy crap old".  That is really pretty young for airplanes.

[LegacyAirman]

In my wing, across 9 aircraft, it is 18.5 years old average.

The 172's are all in the 27-28 range, and the 182's, except for one, are 10 or under.

The oldest plane we have is 31 years old, and the newest is 4.

Wow. So some are pretty old. Now, as a relative newb to the air side are those "old" aircraft? Clearly they're not new, but as they similar to an 76 Datsun for instance? What's a good number for an age of an aircraft in that we'd want and not saying its brand new.

Maintenance is the key. I just saw where a guy is supposed to have driven his 1966 Volvo over 3 million miles since he purchased it new. Up until 2004 I was flying in 1964 & '65 WC-130's through hurricanes. Sure, a couple of minor problems now and then; but most of them are still flying, although they've been sent elsewhere now.

[Eclipse]

Even at minimum expectations most aircraft are maintained at a level well beyond your average street vehicle.

CAP exceeds those minimum expectations by considerable factors, which means our aircraft are used for decades after they
are removed from our fleet.  Generally, what "breaks" a plane is a hard landing, or engine issue that is cost prohibitive for
the owner to repair, other then that, there's no reason an aircraft can't fly indefinitely.  Metal fatigue and corrosion
are certainly factors, but can be mitigated during inspections.

[lordmonar]

Well....there is a absolute life expectancy for any air frame......it all comes down to maintenance costs.

At some point it is just cheaper to scrap the airframe then to try to keep if flying.

But yes.....If you are willing to keep pouring money into an airframe it will keep flying indefinably.

There are still WWI planes flying around....and DC-3 and P-38's and B-52s and even some older planes.

[Critical AOA]

There are a lot of correct statements here in regard to maintenance being the key, that there are limits to an airframe's life, that fatigue and corrosion are major issues.  What everyone needs to realize however is that none of this has anything at all to do with how old in years an aircraft is.  It has to do with flight hours and flight cycles.  Fatigue happens from flying not sitting.  Also on pressurized aircraft, cycles come into play as the more times you pressurize and depressurize a pressure vessel, the more fatigue you cause and the increase chances of cracking.  That is why commercial jets undergo periodic NDT as part of their ICA / maintenance program.
 
But in respect to aircraft most of us normally fly, Cessna recently put out a notice that recommends a life limit of 30,000 hours for many 100 series airframes.  That is a ton of hours.

BTW, I recently flew right seat in the EAA's Ford Tri-Motor which was built in 1929.  It is in great shape and will most likely fly for many more years to come. 

[Eclipse]

This popped up today an A&SS about the AVGAS issue:
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/The-Fight-Over-Avgas-215585091.html?c=y&story=fullstory