I heard someone once say they were unuseful and practically obsolete. What are the plans for the subfleet? More 206's?
Subfleet?
I did hear CAP was getting some old diesel tubs from DRMO.
Whoever you "heard" say that once hasn't flown the aircraft in an operational role. In many ways it is an ideal CAP aircraft: flight characteristics at low speeds are very benign, it handles more or less like a "heavy" Cessna 182, it can carry a whole bunch of stuff, it has enough seats to qualify a lot of aircrew positions in a single training sortie, and when pressed into service as a sensor ship -- either for ARCHER (which actually is kind of useless) or as a photo platform -- it offers a combination of stability and long loiter time that's ideal for our mission. The windows on the left and right front seats bow out somewhat, which permits a straight look down. Visibility is good too.
The squadron where I just finished my command tour has been a GA-8 custodian for three or four months at a time at least once or twice a year for the past four years. During that time, our pilots have flown that aircraft in support of Superstorm Sandy (aerial damage assessment, photography, and some cargo), flooding in North Carolina, flooding in South Carolina and storm damage in Virginia. I've even prosecuted an ELT search on a cold, dark winter night with that aircraft, and it flew like a champ.
Drawbacks? It's bigger, so it burns more gas (but not as much more as you might think); no autopilot. The autopilot is a biggie. And while the aircraft has gotten some avionics upgrades, with a decent Garmin in the middle, it's not as cosmic as a Cessna 182T with a real autopilot and two big flat-panel glass displays.
But "useless"? No way. Not even a little.
and it may get a "new" mission
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Quote from: NIN on May 29, 2017, 10:58:59 PM
and it may get a "new" mission
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Whenever you're ready... ;)
Quote from: ProdigalJim on May 29, 2017, 06:05:15 PM
Whoever you "heard" say that once hasn't flown the aircraft in an operational role. In many ways it is an ideal CAP aircraft: flight characteristics at low speeds are very benign, it handles more or less like a "heavy" Cessna 182, it can carry a whole bunch of stuff, it has enough seats to qualify a lot of aircrew positions in a single training sortie, and when pressed into service as a sensor ship -- either for ARCHER (which actually is kind of useless) or as a photo platform -- it offers a combination of stability and long loiter time that's ideal for our mission. The windows on the left and right front seats bow out somewhat, which permits a straight look down. Visibility is good too.
The squadron where I just finished my command tour has been a GA-8 custodian for three or four months at a time at least once or twice a year for the past four years. During that time, our pilots have flown that aircraft in support of Superstorm Sandy (aerial damage assessment, photography, and some cargo), flooding in North Carolina, flooding in South Carolina and storm damage in Virginia. I've even prosecuted an ELT search on a cold, dark winter night with that aircraft, and it flew like a champ.
Drawbacks? It's bigger, so it burns more gas (but not as much more as you might think); no autopilot. The autopilot is a biggie. And while the aircraft has gotten some avionics upgrades, with a decent Garmin in the middle, it's not as cosmic as a Cessna 182T with a real autopilot and two big flat-panel glass displays.
But "useless"? No way. Not even a little.
But they're almost useless in the "High and Hot" conditions that we have out west. A 3 blade prop like the 206 has would help a lot!
Quote from: PHall on May 30, 2017, 04:21:28 AM
But they're almost useless in the "High and Hot" conditions that we have out west. A 3 blade prop like the 206 has would help a lot!
Under powered for their gross operating weight, is that what you mean? At MGTOW, the specs below show the useful load with full fuel is around 1274 Lbs, which is pretty good.
I wonder what the control pressures are? Is it flown with a lot of trimming? ROC at sea level on a 'Standard Day' don't look really impressive, nor are the TO and landing figures presented below. If the minimum climb acceptable for mountain OPs is 300 fpm, that might be a problem for operations between May and late September in just about every western state.
======================
Specifications from: http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Gippsland%20G48%20airvan.htm (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Gippsland%20G48%20airvan.htm)
Engine Lycoming I0-540-K1A5
Wing Area 19.3m2 [208 ft2] or about 19.2 lb/SqFt
Aspect Ratio 8:1
Cabin Floor Area 54 ft2
Cabin Internal Volume 180 ft3
Useable Fuel Capacity (Wings) 332 l (87.7 USG, or 526.2 lbs)
Empty Weight 997 kg (2200 lb)
Certified T.O.W. 1814 kg (4000 lb)
Vne (never exceed speed) 185 KIAS
Normal Cruise @ 4000' 118 KTAS @ 56 l/hr (14.8 USG/hr
Normal Range* 730nm (6hr)
Economic Cruise @ 8000' 104 KTAS @ 37 l/hr (9.8 USG/hr)
Maximum Range* 930nm (9hr)
* No Reserves
Dimensions
Length: 8.9m (29'4")
Width: 12.4m (40'9")
Height: 3.9m (12'9")
Wheel Track: 2.8m (9'2")
Performance
Stall Speed (0° Flap): 60KIAS
Stall Speed (38° Flap): 52 KIAS
Normal Cruise @ 4000': 118 KTAS @ 56 l/hr (14.8 USG/hr
Normal Range: 730nm (6hr)
Economic Cruise @ 8000': 104 KTAS @ 37 l/hr (9.8 USG/hr)
Maximum Range: 930nm (9hr)
Takeoff Performance Distance to 50ft:
@ 2700 RPM - 487m (1548 ft)
@ 2500 RPM - 554m (1818ft)
Landing Performance from 50ft: 371m (1218 ft)
Rate of Climb: 787 ft/min (ISA Sea Level)
Noise Performance
Meets ICAO Annexe 16 Noise Requirements @ 2500RPM & FAR 36 Requirements @ 2700 RPM Sea Level ISA conditions @ Maximum Take Off Weight
^^^^^
Can't really disagree. Considering the elevation at KHEF is 192 feet (!) we haven't really run into much of an issue. Although I will readily admit a July afternoon, fully loaded? Yep, it takes a long time to giddy-up and go. Personally, I think a GA-8 with a turbocharger would be a pretty cool thing.
Even so, for a lot of what we do I would argue it's still a very capable platform.
I do know Green Flag West uses its GA-8 to shuttle crews back and forth between missions. They'll take off from their Green Flag Hangar at unspecified airport then during the GF mission in the area of operations they'll land at a nearby GA Airport and the GA-8 with new aircrew will meet up and switch crews and old crew gets brought home.
It's an awesome aircraft for mass transport. I also see it useful for disaster situations (as mentioned already)
A year ago December, three squadrons in our Group put on an aircrew qualification "rodeo" using the GA-8, a 182 and a 172. Here's the excerpt from our after-action memo up the chain:
"1) -- For today's $200 spent, we generated 22 crewmember-sorties (three GA-8 sorties, one in 714 and one in 30X-Ray, times the number of aircrew who acquired sorties), signed off 17 aircrew qualifications, practiced interoperability across three squadrons, gave the Group 3 operations/command truck and its five radios an operational shakedown and set up an expeditionary mission base.
2) -- We produced qualifications for just a shade under $12 per qualification.
3) -- The GA-8 proved its worth as an efficient platform for crewmember-sortie generation, accounting for 16 crewmember-sorties at a cost of $8.25 per crewmember-sortie. If my notes are correct, we were able to create nine new Airborne Photographers for less than $15 per AP qualified. Yes, the GA-8 costs *slightly* more on an absolute basis to operate, but with six or seven crew on board it is the fastest and least expensive way to qualify aircrew positions."
What's a "crewmember-sortie"? That's the number of sorties times the number of crew flying that sortie; it measures efficiency of training effort by demonstrating the value of using a single sortie to produce multiple qualifications.