CAP A/C FLEET FUTURE

[Sarge]

Does anyone have the "gouge" on which way the fleet will go?...I have heard that NHQ is now wanting to reverse the move to go to less aircraft and back to around the 550 mark. True? I am alo wondering about the future of the 172...I really don't want to see them go in the interest of cadet flight training and the fact we have some good 172 pilots as well....Has NHQ been approached about the 162 by Cessna yet?

Fmr Cadet
Mitchell 1979
Lt Col - Sq/CC
NCR

[FW]

Yep, the NB has approved the fleet size at 550 aircraft.  I wonder about the 172 also.  However, it looks like we are only going to purchase 182's from now on with an occasional 206 purchased from time to time.   We will not purchase 162's.  They are too small and have insufficient payload to perform our missions.

[RiverAux]

Actually, 550 is an INCREASE in our official fleet size over what it was (530?).  We have been above our authorized fleet strength because we haven't gotten rid of airplanes as fast as we've bought them. 

[Climbnsink]

That article on Fossett said that CAP had Blackhawks,
cant wait to complete my form 5H 
Wonder what a C-17 flight in a Blackhawk will cost

[Trung Si Ma]

That article on Fossett said that CAP had Blackhawks,
cant wait to complete my form 5H 
Wonder what a C-17 flight in a Blackhawk will cost

BossHawk - What are the 60-1 currency requirements for NVGs in a CrashHawk? 

[Mustang]

With the pathetic useful load of the Nav III-equipped T182Ts, more 206s are needed in the mountainous wings.  I also think it's important to maintain 172s in the fleet for cadet flight training, but the powers that be disagree....

[PHall]

With the pathetic useful load of the Nav III-equipped T182Ts, more 206s are needed in the mountainous wings.  I also think it's important to maintain 172s in the fleet for cadet flight training, but the powers that be disagree....

That's because we don't get paid when we're doing cadet flight training.

See, it's very simple.

[cap801]

The cadet sure pays.  I spent $3000 with CAP getting my license (yes, much cheaper than anywhere else).  I was under the impression that CAP was moving towards a 182 fleet.  I think they could buy a lot more 182's if they left off the G1000 and just opted for a nice Garmin stack.  The G1000 is a great tool to have for situational awareness and especially for the IFR environment, but CAP aircraft missions don't often call for operations in inclement weather, and I think all that it does is divide the attention of the pilot away from flying the airplane.  Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge geek and I think that two 10.4" screens in a cockpit is the neatest thing since sliced bread.  I just don't think it's worth tens of thousands of dollars.

[DNall]

At around 350k, it wouldn't be many more airplanes. I like it, but also question if it's the best use of funds. I'd really like to see us spending on additional sensors (something beyond eyeball - like FLIR as an example). Which brings me to the fact that we already have weight issues now in 182s. You start adding stuff & a 172 is done. If anything, I think we should be picking up a few more 206s.

[bosshawk]

It is my understanding that CAP is going to standardize with 182T aircraft: at least in the near future.  As far as I know, no 172s are being purchased.  A few 206s are being purchased and I do know that CAWG has made a pitch to have more 206s purchased to replace the ones that we have now(five I think).  I also am of the opinion that Cessna is not delivering any 182 without the glass cockpit.  If that is true, getting any with the old steam guages would require a special order. 

Somebody else is correct: the 182T has a serious weight limitation.  With standard gear and the survival gear that CAP requires, the planes are real close to a two person aircraft: particularly on a  hot day.

Question about 60-1 requirements for NVG: it is my understanding that fllight crews in CAP are forbidden to use NVGs.  With proper training and certification, scanners and observers can use them.  Anyone priced those things?  Probably not in the AF budget for CAP.

[DNall]

^ Bet I could walk across the field & sign some out though.

[cap801]

I remember reading that we're forbidden to use NVG's as well.  You could walk across the field and check some out (of course not everyone has that luxury), but as 60-1 is written today, we can't use them.  I was just talking with my former CAP instructor last night about getting some hardware that would actually be useful like a FLIR system.  They're a factory option in the Maule's now I think, for something like $20,000.  Definitely cheaper than a G1000.  A FLIR system would actually give us some operation capability at night and I think it would be used a lot more often than anyone's GA8's with Archer system.  Has anyone found a use for Archer yet?

[Frenchie]

At around 350k, it wouldn't be many more airplanes. I like it, but also question if it's the best use of funds. I'd really like to see us spending on additional sensors (something beyond eyeball - like FLIR as an example). Which brings me to the fact that we already have weight issues now in 182s. You start adding stuff & a 172 is done. If anything, I think we should be picking up a few more 206s.

We don't really have weight issues on the 182. 

I flew the 182T NAV III the other day.  With the power pulled back to 62% and properly leaned I was burning 11 Gph at 125 KTAS, which is exactly what the book says minus 5 kts for not having wheel pants.

If you want to pull the power back to 48%, you'll burn 9.1 Gph and still fly faster than a 172.

A typical CAP 182T NAVIII has 1050lbs of useful load.  Filled to the tabs (64 gals) takes up 384lbs of that which leaves you with 666lbs remaining.  That's 3 200lb folks, 66 lbs of gear, and up to 7 hours of endurance (even with reduced fuel) at faster than 172 speeds.  Even if you want to run at 80% power and go 140 KTAS, you still have 4.7 hours of endurance.

Now if you want to run the plane at full fuel all the time and fly 1 hour missions (which presents problems with the max 2950lbs gross landing weight), then yes you are going to have problems with weight, but is that the plane's fault?

The newer 182s necessitate flying smarter (actually the older 182s were the same way).  However, if you know what you're doing, the newer 182s will carry more, fly farther, higher, longer, and faster than any 172 in the fleet and it will do it with more elbow room.  In my book that doesn't mean less capability, it means more, and lots more.  I'll take one of the newer 182s over a 172 any day of the week.  They are far better suited for CAP missions.

[RiverAux]

PILOTS can't use nightvision.  Perfectly acceptable for the others. 

[DNall]

I remember reading that we're forbidden to use NVG's as well.

IIRC, the rule states you have to be trained on the system & it's use in flight.

I was just talking with my former CAP instructor last night about getting some hardware that would actually be useful like a FLIR system.  They're a factory option in the Maule's now I think, for something like $20,000.  Definitely cheaper than a G1000.  A FLIR system would actually give us some operation capability at night and I think it would be used a lot more often than anyone's GA8's with Archer system.  Has anyone found a use for Archer yet?

I think that's going to be for the dashboard landing assistance system. An inexpensive version of what you're used to seeing hanging off helicopters & run off a laptop with a joystick is going to run about three times that. Still a MUCH better use of funds IMO.

At around 350k, it wouldn't be many more airplanes. I like it, but also question if it's the best use of funds. I'd really like to see us spending on additional sensors (something beyond eyeball - like FLIR as an example). Which brings me to the fact that we already have weight issues now in 182s. You start adding stuff & a 172 is done. If anything, I think we should be picking up a few more 206s.

We don't really have weight issues on the 182. 

I flew the 182T NAV III the other day.  With the power pulled back to 62% and properly leaned I was burning 11 Gph at 125 KTAS, which is exactly what the book says minus 5 kts for not having wheel pants.

If you want to pull the power back to 48%, you'll burn 9.1 Gph and still fly faster than a 172.

A typical CAP 182T NAVIII has 1050lbs of useful load.  Filled to the tabs (64 gals) takes up 384lbs of that which leaves you with 666lbs remaining.  That's 3 200lb folks, 66 lbs of gear, and up to 7 hours of endurance (even with reduced fuel) at faster than 172 speeds.  Even if you want to run at 80% power and go 140 KTAS, you still have 4.7 hours of endurance.

Now if you want to run the plane at full fuel all the time and fly 1 hour missions (which presents problems with the max 2950lbs gross landing weight), then yes you are going to have problems with weight, but is that the plane's fault?

The newer 182s necessitate flying smarter (actually the older 182s were the same way).  However, if you know what you're doing, the newer 182s will carry more, fly farther, higher, longer, and faster than any 172 in the fleet and it will do it with more elbow room.  In my book that doesn't mean less capability, it means more, and lots more.  I'll take one of the newer 182s over a 172 any day of the week.  They are far better suited for CAP missions.

No argument there. The issue is two-fold. 1) we got a WHOLE lot of aircrew north of 200lbs; and, 2) I don't have the weight tolerances to add lots of additional sensors that make the thing actually useful to put over a target area, not and keep a 3 man crew, which you really need when one is eyes down on a sensor.

[DG]

A few 206s are being purchased and I do know that CAWG has made a pitch to have more 206s purchased to replace the ones that we have now(five I think). 

Does the U206H have a Cessna camera window yet?

When we picked ours up, it did not.  But that was over three years ago.  They wanted 60K for the STC.

[Frenchie]

No argument there. The issue is two-fold. 1) we got a WHOLE lot of aircrew north of 200lbs; and, 2) I don't have the weight tolerances to add lots of additional sensors that make the thing actually useful to put over a target area, not and keep a 3 man crew, which you really need when one is eyes down on a sensor.

1) This is true, but the same situation existed with the 172s.  The difference was the 172s were less flexible as they could not reduce their fuel load by a significant amount.

2) If CAP were to go this direction, I see this as a specialty aircraft, rather like the GA-8s.  So perhaps these additional sensors could be incorporated into the GA-8 or similar platform.  However for the majority of CAP missions, you're going to need a set or two of Mark-1 eyeballs as your sensors.  Low-tech and low-cost has always been CAP's strength.

[RiverAux]

Low-tech and low-cost has always been CAP's strength.

True, but people are expecting more today than they were in the past.  If all we offer is the ability to fly a grid with Mark 1 eyeballs at 1,000' or take photos with off-the-shelf cameras, our usefulness is going to be pretty limited.  Bear in mind that in the not-so-distant future the choice is going to be between the above and a NG-run UAV.  In both cases the feds are likely going to end up paying the mission costs, so the state emergency management folks are going to make the call for the most capable platform no matter the cost.  Sure, we might get some occassional calls from the county, but on any large missions we're going to be pretty far down the list of assets. 

[Frenchie]

Low-tech and low-cost has always been CAP's strength.

True, but people are expecting more today than they were in the past.  If all we offer is the ability to fly a grid with Mark 1 eyeballs at 1,000' or take photos with off-the-shelf cameras, our usefulness is going to be pretty limited. 

Our usefulness is the same as always.  Keep in mind the cost to deploy a CAP aircraft is about $100 per hour.  Nobody can compete with that or even come within a cab ride of competing with that.  In that regard, we have no competition.

Firewatch missions?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  Military low level route surveys?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  ELT searches?  Nobody can do it cheaper.  And there will always be a need for someone to go out and mow the grass with a set of Mark 1 eyeballs for whatever reason.  Again, nobody does it cheaper.

My squadron is flying more missions now than ever and when we show other government entities what we can do, they are impressed.  This spring my squadron flew firewatch missions.  When a fire was found, we could communicate with the folks on the ground and provide an aerial description to the Incident Commander (Fire Dept) on what was going on.  They loved it and we were a great help.  Suddenly the Jerkwater, TX Volunteer Fire Dept. has aerial surveillance capability on the scene.  You can't imagine the value that adds to them.

Just look at how our capability has expanded with relatively cheap additions.  The Becker system and SDIS adds a lot of capability.  Lots of bang for the buck there.  Imagine flying over a fire or any other type of disaster and providing pictures in real time.  Imagine quickly finding a PLB equipped hiker in a remote area.  All for $100 per hour.  Who else can do that?

I think the 2 problems we have are that many government entities don't know what we can do (or even that we exist), and we are not fully using the capability we already have by adequately keeping people trained.  ICS should fix the first problem as will the rising cost of fuel.  When the cost of operating turbine or jet powered aircraft goes up exponentially, government entities are going to be looking for cheaper solutions out of necessity.  They already are, in fact, and congress has taken notice also.  As far as the training issue goes, we are just going to make that problem worse by adding technically sophisticated systems we don't need.

Look at how much money was spent on the Archer system, and how many aircraft have we found with it? It sure sounded like a good idea at the time, but how useful has it been?  Certainly some technology is good, but it has to be small.  It has to be lightweight.  It has to be ridiculously simple to use. It has to be cheap.  And there has to be lots of bang for the buck.  Otherwise we are just better off sticking to what we already do well.  Other systems might sound sexy to that chick you're hitting on in a bar, but do they really help in the big scheme of things?

I see lots of capability we already have, but are underutilized.  I also see the need for those capabilities expanding in the near and distant future, not diminishing.

[SAR-EMT1]

In my humble scanner opinion, every Region (if not every Wing) should have at least 1 bird equipped with a FLIR turret and a few aircrews trained to use the sucker.