What is the best airplane for mountain search flying in your opinion? And is your experience first hand or not. Either way, I don't care, I want to hear all input but please identify if you have flown it before.
Specifications:
Jet A preferably but doesn't matter
Able to operate from sea level to 12,000
Able to carry minimum of 2
The turbo prop Helio Courier flown by Pima County Sheriff in AZ is a nice one.
Out here in the mountain west, 12000' is not high enough. Need to be able to make 14 or higher. Turbo 182s work pretty well. You just have to watch the weight.
OV-10 Bronco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10).
Quote from: SarDragon on November 22, 2011, 02:42:29 AM
OV-10 Bronco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10).
If Civil Air Patrol started flying these..I'd have to go get my pilots license
Pilatus Porter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-6_Porter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-6_Porter)
Helio Super Courier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helio_Courier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helio_Courier)
If you want an airplane you can actually find and use, try the turbo 182.
Quote from: scooter on November 21, 2011, 11:12:04 PM
Out here in the mountain west, 12000' is not high enough. Need to be able to make 14 or higher. Turbo 182s work pretty well. You just have to watch the weight.
Yeah, I fly the Sierra all the time. Not sure how I typed 12,000. I meant 20. Actually 20+.
A 182T would actually be a downgrade. Im flying a TC206H right now and get it up to about 18K for highbird on SARs sometimes and can still climb with no issues. Flying the canyons up around Mammoth is fun in it also when I have it stripped out and just have one Observer. Im looking at the turbo prop Helio Courier.
We may have the opportunity to upgrade at work. Just seeing what peoples ideas are.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 22, 2011, 03:23:28 AMWe may have the opportunity to upgrade at work. Just seeing what peoples ideas are.
With a caption.. "Buy Cocaine! We want a new airplane!!"
Yip >:D
I admit that a Swiss made A/C like the Pilatus would be good (the Swiss should know a thing or two about mountain flying :)
But I vote for the Questair Kodiak. Decent 170 Kt cruise too.
QuoteWhat is the best airplane for mountain search flying?
For CAP or professional pilots?
For CAP it has to be the Turbo 206. It needs to be simple because the average CAP mission pilot doesn't fly much. The turbo will give you the altitude. But the turbo increases the weight so at least in the 206, unlike the 182, you can carry 3 people and their gear (Including oxygen). Lands slow. Cheap to run, easy to train CAP pilots in, familiar etc.
For professional pilots and organizations with a budget, there has to be some nice turbine choices out there. But I'd say though that it would want to be something fairly common that pilots in the organization would find easy to step into or that you could find people that have a lot of time in them. I don't think having a mish-mash of a bunch of different aircraft across a search and rescue organization is a good idea, for that reason along with a unified maintenance program, parts, service experience etc. Any organization based around flying is so much simpler and profitable when it operates one type of aircraft. Look at Fedex with their big fleet of short haul Caravans, Southwest with a single model of aircraft that every pilot can fly and every mechanic work on etc. There is always going to be some kind of specialized aircraft that does an outstanding job at one thing, like SAR, but isn't great at some of the other tasks that the organization may need. I would think that the professional SAR organizations around the country have already studied this one and chosen. Maybe just look at what they've done. I'd also look to see European agencies have chosen. They have a lot more people in higher density mountain environments than in the US.
Law Enforcement actually.
Im liking the Helio Courier turbo prop. Im flying a TC206H right now but its actually more expensive to operate because of the cost of 100LL. We get DoD Jet A which is about $3 per gallon cheaper than the pump rate the average Joe pays. With what I fly the 206 per year, that same amount of flight time would be about $45-$50,000 cheaper in fuel costs if I could burn Jet A. CRAZY HUH!!?? We have our own Dept mechanics so that really brings down the maintenance costs that other people would need to consider into it. Plus, we are self insured so us operating a turbine isnt calculated the same as a private business operating a turbine.
Are the new manufacture Helio Courier's Turbo Props powered by PT-6s? I saw where the Couriers list a piston engine but the Helio Stallion has a Turbine. Seems most if not all smaller turbo props use a PT-6.
I must have missed something. But that wouldn't be the first time ;D
http://www.policehelicopterpilot.com/police-helicopter-journal/tag/courier (http://www.policehelicopterpilot.com/police-helicopter-journal/tag/courier)
How do you figure saving 45-50k annually on fuel for a turbine, even with your discount?
Let's say a Turbo 206 averages 17 gallons an hour. With 100LL at $6 a gallon, that's $102 an hour. And let's say a very small turbine (The helio has more than one) averages 25 gallons an hour. If Jet A is $6.25 a gallon, with your discount that is $3.25. So $81.25 an hour.
That makes an hourly saving of $20.75. To save 45-50k annually, you would have to fly 2,169 to 2,410 hours.
You fly that much?
I think also you need to factor in purchase and overhaul costs. What is the cost of a new Allison 370shp turbine? $350,000 (I'm just guessing here. Somebody else chime in). What's a Continental - $50k by comparison. And the TBO? For a Continental is it going to be in the order of 1700-2000 hours. For a turbine you have the hot section inspection at what - 1500 hours - that's probably 50k. Then the overhaul might be at 3500 hours. Another 300k - at least that's what a P&W might cost. So the capital required is going to be a couple of hundred grand higher and the hourly engine reserve maybe $85 vs. $30.
Turbines are just off the scale in running costs compared to pistons. Fuel just doesn't enter into it, IMHO. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'd sure like one.
Quote from: simon on November 26, 2011, 07:14:05 AM
How do you figure saving 45-50k annually on fuel for a turbine, even with your discount?
Let's say a Turbo 206 averages 17 gallons an hour. With 100LL at $6 a gallon, that's $102 an hour. And let's say a very small turbine (The helio has more than one) averages 25 gallons an hour. If Jet A is $6.25 a gallon, with your discount that is $3.25. So $81.25 an hour.
That makes an hourly saving of $20.75. To save 45-50k annually, you would have to fly 2,169 to 2,410 hours.
You fly that much?
I think also you need to factor in purchase and overhaul costs. What is the cost of a new Allison 370shp turbine? $350,000 (I'm just guessing here. Somebody else chime in). What's a Continental - $50k by comparison. And the TBO? For a Continental is it going to be in the order of 1700-2000 hours. For a turbine you have the hot section inspection at what - 1500 hours - that's probably 50k. Then the overhaul might be at 3500 hours. Another 300k - at least that's what a P&W might cost. So the capital required is going to be a couple of hundred grand higher and the hourly engine reserve maybe $85 vs. $30.
Turbines are just off the scale in running costs compared to pistons. Fuel just doesn't enter into it, IMHO. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'd sure like one.
Then why are they replacing the radial engines on Beavers and Otters up in Alaska with PT6's?
The reasons I've heard are lower operating and maintenance costs.
Guys: just remember that FP flies for a sheriff's office in Central CA: costs are figured differently. They already have two MD500s, so have mechanics and fuel for them.
QuoteThen why are they replacing the radial engines on Beavers and Otters up in Alaska with PT6's?
The reasons I've heard are lower operating and maintenance costs.
Now we are bringing a third variable in for comparison: Radial Engines, as one owner put it to me, "Convert cash into noise".
The Otter has a 1340 cubic inch, 9 cylinder Pratt & Whitney radial first run in 1925's. These engines are OLD and they have a number of AD's, some of which involve expensive internal inspections, e.g. this 150 hour crankshaft one:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/9b82084e46fe8a3a8625684700614d32 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/9b82084e46fe8a3a8625684700614d32)!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-8
The Beaver also uses a P&W radial, the Wasp Jr. It ceased production in 1953.
I don't think comparing an engine that went out of production over half a century ago is a valid comparison to one that can be bought new from the factory and has a nationwide network of overhaul shops and ready supply of parts.
So before even looking at fuel consumption, with the radial vs. turbine comparison, one has to consider other factors. First off - weight. Radials are heavy and these two planes you mentioned are freight dogs (Either self loading or otherwise). So the ability to take a couple of extra passengers with a turbine is a factor. Next, reliability. Obviously for a radial, which have to be coaxed into life, especially in cold conditions. Maintanence, availability of parts etc. I'll bet it all adds up, expecially in a commercial operation where they need these planes to go day after day. It may just be that fuel is a smaller part of the overall picture.
But I would still like to see the financials on a piston vs. turbine comparison for carrying 2-3 people in a slow, high wing plane in the mountains.
One of the main reasons for switching from Radial to Turbine is the TBO for the engines. Radials generally have a TBO (Time Between Overhauls) of 1500-1800 Hours, whereas a lot of the newer turbines have a TBO between 4500 - 6000 Hrs. This translates to less downtime for maintenance, and overall lower maintenance costs (Turbines have a lot fewer moving parts that need replacement on a regular basis, although they do cost more when they have to be replaced...
A big reason to switch from a radial to a turbine.
If a radial isn't leaking oil it means the oil tank is empty. >:D
How about a L-39C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39_Albatros) >:D ? It cost under $250,000, has jet engines, and after a year or so doesn't need too much maintence! I joke, I joke.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 22, 2011, 02:42:29 AM
OV-10 Bronco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10).
+1 ;D
adding in my $0.02..
Theres the PC-6
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/#20 (http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/#20)
If you wanted to stick with the C206... the Turbine 206
http://www.soloy.com/Products/Fixed+Wing+Aircraft/Turbine+Cessna+206+Mark+1/default.aspx (http://www.soloy.com/Products/Fixed+Wing+Aircraft/Turbine+Cessna+206+Mark+1/default.aspx)
Cessna 208 Caravan
http://www.cessna.com/caravan/caravan-675.html (http://www.cessna.com/caravan/caravan-675.html)
Lastly is the Explorer 500T
http://www.exploreraircraft.com/500T.php (http://www.exploreraircraft.com/500T.php)
Hopefully that all that helps.. most of those are for multiple people or 2 people and good deal of cargo.. if you were looking for just 2 people, then theres always LAAR... just minus the A/A.. or if you wanted to keep the A/A, I wouldn't complain I'd call for a job....
Pig,
I don't think you can go wrong with the Quest Kodiak. Some military units are testing it right now for incorporation of the ISR role which is about exactly what you're doing. The assessment process has already gone through Caravans, Porters, etc and they came up with the Kodiak because of the low operating costs and new build quality in addition to short field capability.
When they were looking at upgrading modern designs, the costs involved were astronomical...even for the military. You can pretty much get a Kodiak off the shelf with good factory support for the same price as a one off tricked out Porter or Courier.
Mike-
I always wondered if the compair 7 would work. http://www.aerocompinc.com/ (http://www.aerocompinc.com/)
It looks like it has all the features but there is some assembly required.
Sparky Imerson, author of the Mountain Flying bible, told me that this was the ultimate mountain flying airplane.
http://www.katmai-260se.com/ (http://www.katmai-260se.com/)
I owned one for several years and fully concurred with him.
Even more reasons for a Kodiak. On another note the imagery system itself (BTC 195) just might be viable for the CAP if can be kept light enough. They even mention the ability to route the video through the G1000 MFD
http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html (http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html)
Quote from: blackrain on November 28, 2011, 04:56:42 AM
On another note the imagery system itself (BTC 195) just might be viable for the CAP if can be kept light enough. They even mention the ability to route the video through the G1000 MFD
http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html (http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html)
That system looks like it would be perfect for our airplanes... I wonder if there is some catch to it...
Quote from: Mark_Wheeler on November 28, 2011, 05:58:25 AM
Quote from: blackrain on November 28, 2011, 04:56:42 AM
On another note the imagery system itself (BTC 195) just might be viable for the CAP if can be kept light enough. They even mention the ability to route the video through the G1000 MFD
http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html (http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html)
That system looks like it would be perfect for our airplanes... I wonder if there is some catch to it...
Replace Archer with that thing and then we're talking. Heck put it in one 182 per wing and then you could get some real aerial recon done.
No kidding... that, hooked up to a toughbook.. now w're talking! I wonder what the cost per unit it? I wonder if its an STC or an FAA Field Approval...
Rob, the Helio is definitely something to look into, but the Kodiak offers quite a bit besides the "2 to 20" config. It can haul stuff around, not to mention the ISR config with that sensor ball (CAP would never buy that: it costs way more than they're willing to ever spend for a system that is way more complex than most folks know how to make heads or tails of. "Geo-referenced imagery? Why would you *ever* want that?" Never mind that it would deliver easily 10x what we currently attempt to deliver to our "customers")
If it were my bucks, I'd snatch up a Kodiak in a heartbeat.
you can always buy a Turbo GA-8
and we will call it . . . . The pig with lipstick
Quote from: wingnut55 on November 29, 2011, 04:40:57 AM
you can always buy a Turbo GA-8
and we will call it . . . . The pig with lipstick
Heck, just putting a three bladed prop on it would be an improvement...
Quote from: NIN on November 29, 2011, 02:24:34 AM
Rob, the Helio is definitely something to look into, but the Kodiak offers quite a bit besides the "2 to 20" config. It can haul stuff around, not to mention the ISR config with that sensor ball (CAP would never buy that: it costs way more than they're willing to ever spend for a system that is way more complex than most folks know how to make heads or tails of. "Geo-referenced imagery? Why would you *ever* want that?" Never mind that it would deliver easily 10x what we currently attempt to deliver to our "customers")
If it were my bucks, I'd snatch up a Kodiak in a heartbeat.
I think we could learn the system OK. Granted the 160k price tag for the BTC 195 isn't cheap but it's still less than some. Time and competition should bring prices for this type of equipment down some in the future.....I hope. Of course quantifying "mission effectiveness" to the bean counters generally isn't easy.
We spent how much per ARCHER unit? for prototypes with no support and got what, 15 or so. Of which 4 or 5 are still operational after five years.
The BTC 195 appears to be COTS, proven technology with a support channel. I would think if CAP came out with "We want 60 of these units." the price could easily come down. Or piggy back on a federal order (if one is made). Also, the BTC doesn't require a dedicated airframe. The aircraft can be used for other missions (o-flights?) as well, if you're using the laptop configuration.
As for the bean counters, cost effectiveness is understood. And there are some who can quantify mission effectiveness, especially when compared to the ARCHER system.
www.skyimd.com (http://www.skyimd.com) would suite CAP just fine. About $100K per plane. Ive demo'd their system in flight and it works exactly like they said it would.
I'm for either as long as we get the capability
Has anyone in CAP drawn up requirements for a system that could be used in a future solicitation? Maybe an industry request for proposal would be the way to go.
REQUIREMENTS////// CAP has never needed no stinking requirements: didn't have any for ARCHER, why start now?
Col Reed
You know the Archer looked good on paper, the plane is truely a pig
Quote from: bosshawk on November 29, 2011, 07:19:30 PM
REQUIREMENTS////// CAP has never needed no stinking requirements: didn't have any for ARCHER, why start now?
I think ARCHER is why we need to have validated requirements now.
Quote from: wingnut55 on November 30, 2011, 01:00:00 AM
Col Reed
You know the Archer looked good on paper, the plane is truely a pig
IDK, I've flown in it and other than the seats sucking more than a hoover it was a fairly enjoyable ride and the pilots love to show it off. We were able to pull off a photo tasking(MP,MO,MS) while flying a media flight that had two local reporters aboard. I'd like to see someone do that with a Cessna.
Quote from: davidsinn on November 30, 2011, 02:10:50 AM
Quote from: wingnut55 on November 30, 2011, 01:00:00 AM
Col Reed
You know the Archer looked good on paper, the plane is truely a pig
IDK, I've flown in it and other than the seats sucking more than a hoover it was a fairly enjoyable ride and the pilots love to show it off. We were able to pull off a photo tasking(MP,MO,MS) while flying a media flight that had two local reporters aboard. I'd like to see someone do that with a Cessna.
That would be pretty much a no-sweater in our 206.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 30, 2011, 05:38:19 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on November 30, 2011, 02:10:50 AM
Quote from: wingnut55 on November 30, 2011, 01:00:00 AM
Col Reed
You know the Archer looked good on paper, the plane is truely a pig
IDK, I've flown in it and other than the seats sucking more than a hoover it was a fairly enjoyable ride and the pilots love to show it off. We were able to pull off a photo tasking(MP,MO,MS) while flying a media flight that had two local reporters aboard. I'd like to see someone do that with a Cessna.
That would be pretty much a no-sweater in our 206.
Just with two of us in the back the payload was over 500 lbs. Adding in the other three people and I bet we were on the sunny side of 800. We had 64 gallons of gas as well. IDK what the capacity of a 206 is but I bet that's close. Did I mention that all three in the back had a row to ourselves so we had freedom to move around without taking out the person next to us? I get the hate for ARCHER because it was a horribly run program that never accomplished anything but the aircraft is pretty sound once you take the system out.
Here's video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qgpSIOPq7s#ws) of the flight I'm talking about. I'm behind the pilot. It was a great flight because our return trip was straight over my house ;D
I think if we wanted to we could get a lot of good use out of the GA8s moving stuff and people in and out of major missions.
$20 M and all CAP gets out of the deal is a people and stuff mover? Could hire a bunch of C-130s for that much money.
The thread is getting a little off topic.
My only point is that for two, possibly three people searching in the mountains, even at altitude, a turbo piston is hands down the most economical way to go. A 206 is a lot of bang for the buck. There are other options of course. But if you don't want to add a zero to the hourly costs, they will all have reciprocating engine up front.
If you don't mind paying 5 times as much, go for a turbine. Because that's what it costs in capital and maintenance over the life of the article. Strange how the sales guys don't mention that. Of course, you can't compare the capabilities of the two. 300 vs. 600hp.
One also can't compare costs when it is a private operation vs. local government, especially military. When there is talk about things like discounted fuel, "in house mechanics" etc., it isn't an apples to apples comparison. If those things are available, then sure, there is the nice option of picking a more expensive and capable machine because the true costs are buried. If a government buyer has someone in house that can work on turbines, that's great, but to be fair there is the factoring in of employee costs, benefits, pensions etc. These costs over a year are HUGE compared to $100 an hour for a contract mechanic.
In the business I am dealing with at the moment, only when one amortize everything over the life of the equipment, depreciation, labor, overheads etc., does it reveal that the direct operating costs of a piece of equipment are minor fraction of the overall costs. Not trivial. Just the smaller balance of the total costs.
I just checked with our pilots, and determined that the max payload of a U206G is basically 1000 lb with full tanks. It can carry 5 people with no junk in the back, and no chubbies, but isn't recommended.
One other thing to consider is the type of fuel that's available Jet-A/JP-whatever will likely be available (more so than 110LL) when operating from military facilities or in joint operations in general.
Also if an organiztion uses helicopters as well then you're likely also looking at Jet-A for them too so a turboprop gives fuel commonality among platforms. Having spent time working with maintaining jet turbines on the civ side their overall reliability is pretty amazing.
I know there's been talk of 110LL being harder and harder to find for everyone in the future. Of course that's a ways down the road.
(A nod to Col Reed. He mentioned the 2 MD500s and fuel commanality already)
Yes, a small turbine is more reliable, lighter and more powerful than any reciprocating engine. They are awesome.
But I think where the article started was the question of what would make a great SAR aircraft and opening the options to a turbine given that discounted Jet-A might make it cheaper to run than a reciprocating engine.
Unless the Jet-A is practically free, hour-for-hour in the long run, a 206 is still going to be cheaper to buy, maintain and overhaul than any turbine aircraft.
Quote from: simon on December 02, 2011, 09:04:26 AM
Yes, a small turbine is more reliable, lighter and more powerful than any reciprocating engine. They are awesome.
But I think where the article started was the question of what would make a great SAR aircraft and opening the options to a turbine given that discounted Jet-A might make it cheaper to run than a reciprocating engine.
Unless the Jet-A is practically free, hour-for-hour in the long run, a 206 is still going to be cheaper to buy, maintain and overhaul than any turbine aircraft.
Rob: I know a place hanging a PT-6 on the front of a 206 (no, its not Soloy..) When the STC is available, you guys can fly your 206s to them and have them converted. There are plenty of older PT-6s out there that are more than sufficient for this mod.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 01, 2011, 09:41:03 AM
I just checked with our pilots, and determined that the max payload of a U206G is basically 1000 lb with full tanks. It can carry 5 people with no junk in the back, and no chubbies, but isn't recommended.
Rip all the superfluous junk out of it like seats and the yoke on the right side and you can fit a pilot and six skydivers wearing rigs. :) Not that I know anything about U206s.
The Turbo Beaver by Viking wins hands down: http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=270 (http://www.vikingair.com/content.aspx?id=270)
Because it's built in Canada and I like the name >:D
BTW, Rob, it looks like GippsAero has their GA-10 closer to first flight: longer than a GA-8, same basic planform, Allison/RR 250 B17 under the hood. I bet your mechs have some familiarity with that powerplant, even.
Hmm, Intersting. Yeah, we have C20R++'s on the MD500s and PT-6's on the Bell 212. B17 is pretty much a C20B.
If anyone can find me a photo of the GA10 with the turbo prop mounted.....Il see that your highly decorated.
I looked on the GA site, and all they have is CGI stuff. First flight was supposed to be last month, but there's no news items that I could find.
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 08, 2011, 01:10:15 AM
Hmm, Intersting. Yeah, we have C20R++'s on the MD500s and PT-6's on the Bell 212. B17 is pretty much a C20B.
If anyone can find me a photo of the GA10 with the turbo prop mounted.....Il see that your highly decorated.
"First flight of the GA10 developmental prototype is scheduled
for November 2011, which will lead to the development flighttesting
phase. Type certification by the Australian CASA is
anticipated in February 2013. This will be followed by the type's
public debut at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon,
near Melbourne, in March 2013." So far it's all CGI as far as I can find
Just curious but how important is "Buy American" to government agencies nowadays? Is there a preference in the bidding process? I know exchange rates can affect prices too.
Quote from: blackrain on December 08, 2011, 04:12:18 AM
Just curious but how important is "Buy American" to government agencies nowadays? Is there a preference in the bidding process? I know exchange rates can affect prices too.
Not very important. See the KC-X project and the new COIN aircraft where the US built AT-6B lost out to a Brazilian aircraft.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 08, 2011, 01:33:00 AM
I looked on the GA site, and all they have is CGI stuff. First flight was supposed to be last month, but there's no news items that I could find.
Let me see if I can find the photos of the fuselage in the jigs. Thats the closest I've see to "complete aircraft"
Here's the CGI of the airplane: http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/03/ga10-to-fly-later-this-year/ (http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/03/ga10-to-fly-later-this-year/)
There was a bit of a discussion this week over on Dropzone.com about this aircraft (they were being cagey as to what it was, I figured it out). I totally forgot they also own the rights to the GAF Nomad and are planning to start producing those as the GA-18 next.
Ah, here's some sheetmetal in a jig:
(http://avaddevserver.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/17b-553x321.jpg)
(http://avaddevserver.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/DSC_0078b1-553x378.jpg)
Quote from: NIN on December 09, 2011, 01:55:05 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on December 08, 2011, 01:33:00 AM
I looked on the GA site, and all they have is CGI stuff. First flight was supposed to be last month, but there's no news items that I could find.
Let me see if I can find the photos of the fuselage in the jigs. Thats the closest I've see to "complete aircraft"
Here's the CGI of the airplane: http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/03/ga10-to-fly-later-this-year/ (http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/03/ga10-to-fly-later-this-year/)
There was a bit of a discussion this week over on Dropzone.com about this aircraft (they were being cagey as to what it was, I figured it out). I totally forgot they also own the rights to the GAF Nomad and are planning to start producing those as the GA-18 next.
Ah, here's some sheetmetal in a jig:
(http://avaddevserver.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/17b-553x321.jpg)
(http://avaddevserver.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/DSC_0078b1-553x378.jpg)
With some sheet metal, a few clecos and a powerplant you could build one of your own! 8)
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 09, 2011, 02:12:13 AM
With some sheet metal, a few clecos and a powerplant you could build one of your own! 8)
How about an OH-58 that arrived on a flat-bed sans anything except for a connex full of parts?
Yeah, that was a fun six months. Took a little more than some clecos, sheet metal and a lick of paint.
But I was the guy in the left seat for the MTF.
Quote from: NIN on December 09, 2011, 02:35:40 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 09, 2011, 02:12:13 AM
With some sheet metal, a few clecos and a powerplant you could build one of your own! 8)
How about an OH-58 that arrived on a flat-bed sans anything except for a connex full of parts?
Yeah, that was a fun six months. Took a little more than some clecos, sheet metal and a lick of paint.
But I was the guy in the left seat for the MTF.
I forgot the sarcasm tags :P.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 09, 2011, 02:54:17 AM
Quote from: NIN on December 09, 2011, 02:35:40 AM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on December 09, 2011, 02:12:13 AM
With some sheet metal, a few clecos and a powerplant you could build one of your own! 8)
How about an OH-58 that arrived on a flat-bed sans anything except for a connex full of parts?
Yeah, that was a fun six months. Took a little more than some clecos, sheet metal and a lick of paint.
But I was the guy in the left seat for the MTF.
I forgot the sarcasm tags :P.
oh, no, it was there. :0
Quote from: blackrain on December 08, 2011, 04:12:18 AM
Just curious but how important is "Buy American" to government agencies nowadays? Is there a preference in the bidding process? I know exchange rates can affect prices too.
"Not very" is right. Look at all the agencies flying Eurocopters and riding BMW motorcycles. The MD902 lost out to the EC145. Ive talked to a number of Army Helo drivers who say the MD actually out performed the 145, but Eurocopter still won. They like the 145, but they liked the 902 more. Yeah....I know technically its "American-Eurocopter" but really....they are French!
The CA Highway Patrol and countless other departments choose the Eurocopter over Bell and MD quite often. And the Bell and MD are outstanding platforms and are a lot less to operate. My dept flies MD, Bell and Cessna! An all American law enforcement agency! :clap: