CAP Talk

A question for the masses based on a FB post regarding the National Commanders meeting with Textron/Cessna about possibly getting more C182's powered by AVGAS.  See Link http://capmembers.com/national_commanders_update/?update_on_cap_meeting_with_textron_aviation&show=entry&blogID=1408 (http://capmembers.com/national_commanders_update/?update_on_cap_meeting_with_textron_aviation&show=entry&blogID=1408)

The discussion on FB caught me off guard as the perception of what the Jet A vs AVGAS version has to offer CAP.  I did a little research and number crunching.  Check this link to a Google Spreadsheet to see my numbers.  Basically the Jet A burns 22% less fuel and reduces the full required to be on board (NOT FULL TANKS) and reduce direct operating cost due to reduced fuel burn.  The trade off is in payload from around 72lbs down to 38lbs depending on if it is a low power or high power flight.  The comparison isn't totally fair as this was a non turbo charged comparing to a turbo "diesel".

Direct cost for operating the engine should be lower for not only the burn rate.  Jet A is usually cheaper and we could possibly then pickup the Government rate through DLA or setup our own contract prices to reduce fuel cost further. 

There is also the argument to be made over the maintenance.  TBO on AVGAS is 2000hrs and Jet A is 2400.  6 cylinders for the AVGAS and 4 cylinders for the Jet A.  Magnetos for the AVGAS and a "FADEC" system for the Jet A.

Check it out and you decide and comment. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-_nl3epD8_HtL3DUTTL_Y_oUljlkncyaCxryEGd4GQA/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-_nl3epD8_HtL3DUTTL_Y_oUljlkncyaCxryEGd4GQA/edit?usp=sharing)

There is always an upside and a downside to everything.  Much of the upside is well stated in your post.  The downside is CAP buys a lot of gas where Jet A is not available.  Minimally it would add a new element to flight planning.

There is also the initial cost differential of the two aircraft.  I was told  an  AVGAS C182 is about $100k lower than the JETA version. That's a lot of fuel to burn, however when amortized over 2400 hours, it's not that much of a difference.  Payload is an important factor.  If you consider all the equipment we need to carry on missions, those 30 or so pounds become important.
YMMV.

This is similar to the argument over whether to go with G1000 equipment or analog. Eventually Cessna decided for us by stopping manufacturing analog aircraft. The same problem will exist as Cessna certifies all their aircraft with diesel engines. If CAP plans to continue buying new aircraft a diesel engine could be the only option. Low time used aircraft might be an alternative if Air Force funding permits.  That would keep AVGAS engines in the fleet. I suspect a supplemental CAPF5 would be required for any pilot wanting to fly a diesel. That would limit the number of Mission Pilots able to use the equipment.

This would happen in small increments, at a glacier pace, so the overall impact would be small in the near future. Mission planning for refueling will require more planning to assure any FBO planned for use also has JET-A.

Quote from: sparks on October 10, 2014, 01:11:03 PM
I suspect a supplemental CAPF5 would be required for any pilot wanting to fly a diesel. That would limit the number of Mission Pilots able to use the equipment.

This would happen in small increments, at a glacier pace, so the overall impact would be small in the near future. Mission planning for refueling will require more planning to assure any FBO planned for use also has JET-A.

In regards to a Form 5 check I don't see it as a probably requirement as the aircraft is less complicated to operate.  You have a single leaver for power so planning just involves speed and altitude.  Also, the plane is Turbo Charged to have rated power to 10,000ftMSL so I don't think that there is much of a complication for flight planning. 

Without seeing the POH, I would expect that you select a desired IAS and you will have a set burn like I do in my jet.  A fixed amount of fuel, produces a fixed amount of power/energy and results in a relatively fixed speed with CG and OAT playing some factors.  My FO's never seem to get this though.

Quote from: FW on October 10, 2014, 12:27:24 PM
There is also the initial cost differential of the two aircraft.  I was told  an  AVGAS C182 is about $100k lower than the JETA version. That's a lot of fuel to burn, however when amortized over 2400 hours, it's not that much of a difference.  Payload is an important factor.  If you consider all the equipment we need to carry on missions, those 30 or so pounds become important.
YMMV.

I left initial cost out of it.  I'm not sure that we would see an equal reduction in cost to return to an AVGAS as their supply chain has totally changed and we would be a special build.  Plus, we never have been good at doing stuff in a "cost effective" manor, look at the refit aircraft with how many different combinations of equipment installed for the avionics. 

In regards to the payload, that is a challenge.  We could take a page out of the airline world and try to go to Electronic Flight Bags to reduce weight.  My wing carries all manor of stuff in the back from maintenance logbooks to ladders and even the owners manuals for the engines, avionics and aircraft that are not the POH type info.  The extra weight adds up in small increments.  I was surprised that the 4 cylinder motor weighs that much more.  Does anyone have the Turbo C182T POH to let me do a comparison.  I'm curious about the empty weight of that type vs the normally aspirated version.  I'd also think that we could approach either Cessna or one of the companies that does vortex generators to see if we could regain the lost payload that way.

Quote from: JacobAnn on October 10, 2014, 10:08:47 AM
There is always an upside and a downside to everything.  Much of the upside is well stated in your post.  The downside is CAP buys a lot of gas where Jet A is not available.  Minimally it would add a new element to flight planning.

Yes, Jet A isn't everywhere but its footprint is growing and how often do we base out of places that don't have Jet A?  If we would begin swapping the fleet the placement of the aircraft would need to be appropriate and I also think that the market will be changing as manufactures are all coming out with light general aviation aircraft powered by Jet A.  AVGAS is very difficult to move cheaply, usually only moved by truck or train.  AVGAS can't be shipped by pipeline now due to the lead issues.  It is a major driver for cost.  When airlines move fuel to a major airport it is done by pipeline and the fuel is 1/3 to 1/2 the price when purchased in bulk.  Our system average fuel price, for my airline, is just over $2/gal vs the national pump price of $5+/gal.

What CAP decides is an appropriate checkout to qualify in a 182 diesel remains to be seen. The plan for replacing old airframes is a big question I have, is there one? Annual buys are driven by what appropriation the Air Forces provides for that purpose. CAP gets a bucket of money then has to decide how to divvy that up among the possibilities, 206, 182, 172. The turbo AVGAS VS diesel variations add to the equation. I seem to recall a statement from NHQ saying they would not be buying any more 172 airframes. Does anyone remember that?
I think last year CAP bought 12 206 airframes. I would expect a similar buy this year if money is the same, maybe add a 182 or two.

I'll rock the boat....neither!

No additional aircraft purchases should be made until NHQ determines exactly what missions we can and should fulfill. 

I've long grown tired of the "use them or lose them" rhetoric we are consistently threatened with from NHQ.  Look at the aircraft usage reports.  According to that data, as a whole we are under utilizing our current resources and have been doing so for years.   With that in mind no new resources should be procured until NHQ develops a strategic plan that identifies an active mission profile with appropriate MOUs and agreements for utilization.

But if CAP doesn't get more planes...it won't have more planes...

What's next? Reduce the incubator fleet?

Planes get replaced all the time. We buy some new planes and retire others.

Funny how our fleet size stays essentially the same even though we buy new planes every year.

Because we retire and sell the older airframes.

IIRC, we had the JT-A discussion here a year or so back (correction: TWO years ago) http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16036.msg288554#msg288554 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=16036.msg288554#msg288554)

(ETA: Oh, and a year-ish ago, too: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17525 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17525))

+1 - I don't see how this is even a discussion, other then at the most academic.

CAP will buy whatever is available and it can afford on the day it goes to the airplane store.

As the availability of fuel evolves, it'll rotate aircraft as needed, either swapping out,
whether that means swapping out new for old, basing them at different airports, or
basing them one place and fueling at another.

As it stands today, we have airports that don't accept the CAP credit cards, so we tank up elsewhere,
or the airport isn't 24x7, so we tank up elsewhere, etc., etc.

The point about all the "important" junk in the back of the airplanes, is salient though, at least in
as much as it shouldn't be back there if it impacts usable payload.

Quote from: NIN on October 10, 2014, 07:06:19 PM
Planes get replaced all the time. We buy some new planes and retire others.

Funny how our fleet size stays essentially the same even though we buy new planes every year.

Because we retire and sell the older airframes.

Indeed they do...but should they?  Look at the utilization.   Is our fleet really in that poor of shape?  Certainly none of the aircraft in my Wing are (and we have quite a few). 

We're rushing to replace at a time when our missions are drying up and there is no strategic plan to replace those missions.   What if we didn't replace aircraft for a year or two?  Would we go out of business?  Would we have no airplanes to fly?  What if we reallocated that money towards procuring other items to enhance our capabilities, such as IR devices? 

Every year, all year, we hear about how more hours are needed on the airframes.  Yet, most Wings aren't meeting the minimums...many others are beating the minumum by only an hour or two.   To purchase new replacement aircraft when our existing fleet continues to be under utilized seems borderline FWA. 

Another thing (from the earlier thread about the JT-A) that I think is being missed:

Quote
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)

So the differences in useful loads are about 124lbs.

About.

But thru some futher figuring:

QuoteThe range difference between C-182 and C-182 JT-A is 423NM.

That's about 3.5 hrs of flying 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!)

That 423NM difference is about 3.5 hrs of flying at 120kts.

Most CAP missions don't go even 423NM, let alone to the full 937NM range of the Skylane.

So if we mission/performance planned to the Skylane range extent, we'd gain something back, right?

Lets do some more figuring, based on using the JT-A to the regular Skylane range of 937NM:

QuoteThe JT-A burns 11gph at 90% power (mind you, I'm not a pilot, so I don't know if 90% power is a 120kt 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, if we lop off the extra 3.5 hrs of flying to the full JT-A range and just stick with 937NM as "max range", that works out to not needing 11gph/hr of gas, or about 35-38 gal of Jet-A.   Jet-A weighs 6.7 or 6.8 lbs / gal?  So dropping off 38 gal of Jet-A is 256lbs. 

If you only fly with enough Jet-A  to reach the "normal" cruise range of a Skylane of 937NM, you can leave 11 gallons behind, and you gain 256lbs in useful load.  So you gain back the original 124 lbs  difference in useful load, plus another 132 lbs.  ONE WHOLE SENIOR MEMBER!!

Quote from: A.Member on October 10, 2014, 07:18:39 PMWhat if we reallocated that money towards procuring other items to enhance our capabilities, such as IR devices? 

Probably increase the number of missions and maybe even need more aircraft down the road.

Quote from: A.Member on October 10, 2014, 07:18:39 PM
Every year, all year, we hear about how more hours are needed on the airframes.  Yet, most Wings aren't meeting the minimums...many others are beating the minumum by only an hour or two.

This last FY is going to be especially brutal, and the coming one isn't going to be much better.  My wing rose in the standings
this year and that was with two aircraft down for most of the year.  You can spin that as a local win if you're so inclined,
but nationally that means less hours across the board.

Trendlines, people. Trendlines.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2014, 07:38:14 PM
This last FY is going to be especially brutal, and the coming one isn't going to be much better.  My wing rose in the standings
this year and that was with two aircraft down for most of the year.  You can spin that as a local win if you're so inclined,
but nationally that means less hours across the board.

Trendlines, people. Trendlines.

Yes, your anecdotal situation isn't representative...and that's not spin.

Here's a trendline for you...

FY            Avg Wing Hours-All CAP               # of Wings Exceeding 200 minimum
2014                    155                              10
2013                    174                              17 (with 3 beating min by 3 or fewer hours)
2012                    177                              22 (with 5 beating min by 3 or fewer hours)
2011                    183                              23
2010                    202                               29 

Red  indicating below 200 hours.

Quote from: A.Member on October 10, 2014, 08:03:20 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2014, 07:38:14 PM
This last FY is going to be especially brutal, and the coming one isn't going to be much better.  My wing rose in the standings
this year and that was with two aircraft down for most of the year. You can spin that as a local win if you're so inclined,
but nationally that means less hours across the board.

Trendlines, people. Trendlines.

Yes, your anecdotal situation isn't representative...and that's not spin.

Did you read it?  It's wholly representative.

With two airplanes down for maintenance, my wing still rose in the total hour standings (at least per
messages we received, I honestly haven't looked at the actual numbers) as compared with other wings.

That means that the organization, as a whole, flew significantly less hours overall.

It would only be "anecdotal", if I said "my wing flew less hours this year then last" and drew the
organizational trendline from only that data.

That meaningless discussion aside, your data (should be) eye-opening.

Quote from: A.Member on October 10, 2014, 08:03:20 PM
FY            Avg Wing Hours-All CAP               # of Wings Exceeding 200 minimum
2014                    155                              10
2013                    174                              17 (with 3 beating min by 3 or fewer hours)
2012                    177                              22 (with 5 beating min by 3 or fewer hours)
2011                    183                              23
2010                    202                               29 

Red  indicating below 200 hours.

Seriously...how is the above not a clarion?

Membership is down, year to year, for a decade.

Charters are down at least ~20% in that same period.

Flight hours are showing the same significant down trend,

How is this not the topic of every commander's call, staff meeting,
and article written by NHQ?

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2014, 07:13:31 PM
+1 - I don't see how this is even a discussion, other then at the most academic.

CAP will buy whatever is available and it can afford on the day it goes to the airplane store.

As the availability of fuel evolves, it'll rotate aircraft as needed, either swapping out,
whether that means swapping out new for old, basing them at different airports, or
basing them one place and fueling at another.

As it stands today, we have airports that don't accept the CAP credit cards, so we tank up elsewhere,
or the airport isn't 24x7, so we tank up elsewhere, etc., etc.

The point about all the "important" junk in the back of the airplanes, is salient though, at least in
as much as it shouldn't be back there if it impacts usable payload.

Yes this is just an academic discussion just to see what others think.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2014, 08:25:16 PM
That meaningless discussion aside, your data (should be) eye-opening.

Quote from: A.Member on October 10, 2014, 08:03:20 PM
FY            Avg Wing Hours-All CAP               # of Wings Exceeding 200 minimum
2014                    155                              10
2013                    174                              17 (with 3 beating min by 3 or fewer hours)
2012                    177                              22 (with 5 beating min by 3 or fewer hours)
2011                    183                              23
2010                    202                               29 

Red  indicating below 200 hours.

Seriously...how is the above not a clarion?

Membership is down, year to year, for a decade.

Charters are down at least ~20% in that same period.

Flight hours are showing the same significant down trend,

How is this not the topic of every commander's call, staff meeting,
and article written by NHQ?

On that we agree and it speaks to the point I'm trying to make which is this:  Until NHQ figures out where we're headed and provides some true strategic direction (not that silly thing that was distributed at the National Conference), major purchases such as aircraft should be curtailed.  Otherwise we're simply buying stuff for the sake of buying stuff and that's an incredibly poor model. 

BTW, that's not my data...that's National's data straight from WMIRS.

Uh, why do we really care whether or not we are meeting some completely arbitrary goal for usage?   

Quote from: RiverAux on October 10, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Uh, why do we really care whether or not we are meeting some completely arbitrary goal for usage?

+1

Quote from: RiverAux on October 10, 2014, 09:04:11 PM
Uh, why do we really care whether or not we are meeting some completely arbitrary goal for usage?

Arbitrary or not, that's the metric NHQ is using to determine whether a unit receives/retains aircraft.  That's how it's presented down from NHQ and that's why we care about it.   

So, if most units aren't meeting the 200 hr minimum, is discussion around replacement really appropriate?  Seems such a discussion is putting the cart well ahead of the horse and ignoring the larger issue at hand.

QuoteSo, if most units aren't meeting the 200 hr minimum, is discussion around replacement really appropriate? 

No, the discussion should be whether the metric makes sense in the first place.  Our goal is not to put 200 hours on each aircraft, it should be to make sure we have the aircraft where they are needed to meet our mission requirements.  Number of flying hours tells you nothing in that regard. 

Quote from: RiverAux on October 10, 2014, 10:21:46 PM

QuoteSo, if most units aren't meeting the 200 hr minimum, is discussion around replacement really appropriate? 

No, the discussion should be whether the metric makes sense in the first place.  Our goal is not to put 200 hours on each aircraft, it should be to make sure we have the aircraft where they are needed to meet our mission requirements.  Number of flying hours tells you nothing in that regard.

So, you're in agreement because until there is a plan/vision you cannot know the other things.  Of course, you also can't know resource needs without knowing what you're solving for...and until that is known, making new acquisitions is pound foolish.

What makes you think that they're not doing just that?  I don't  think there is a need to totally re-examine CAP's framework to decide whether to replace a few old airplanes.  I'm fairly sure that they probably already know where the needs are for new airframes and that they've put a lot of thought into where they should go. 

I have no idea how much thought they've put into the fuel issue though. 

There are likely exceptions that prove the rule, but for the most part, units do not retain aircraft, wings do,
and in most wings it only through a lot of airframe wrangling to shuffle them around.

In fact it might be interesting to filter out administrative movement from those hours and see what the real
numbers are.  I be wiling to bet the average good sized wing is spending 50 hours a year moving airplanes
just to make the arbitrary "goals".

NHQ threatens every year to yank planes that don't make the numbers, but with non Wong rising to the top,
where are you going to send them?

Also, while the  last thing we need are a bunch of hangar queens, some aircraft are deployed for political or
mission reasons, and yanking planes won't increase hours. In fact it tends to make a bad situation worse.

Quote from: RiverAux on October 10, 2014, 10:56:44 PM
What makes you think that they're not doing just that?

There is no evidence they've done so.

Quote from: RiverAux on October 10, 2014, 10:56:44 PMI don't  think there is a need to totally re-examine CAP's framework to decide whether to replace a few old airplanes.  I'm fairly sure that they probably already know where the needs are for new airframes and that they've put a lot of thought into where they should go. 

You need to decide which side of the issue you want to argue.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 10, 2014, 11:07:37 PM
There are likely exceptions that prove the rule, but for the most part, units do not retain aircraft, wings do,
and in most wings it only through a lot of airframe wrangling to shuffle them around.

In fact it might be interesting to filter out administrative movement from those hours and see what the real
numbers are.  I be wiling to bet the average good sized wing is spending 50 hours a year moving airplanes
just to make the arbitrary "goals".

NHQ threatens every year to yank planes that don't make the numbers, but with non Wong rising to the top,
where are you going to send them?

Also, while the  last thing we need are a bunch of hangar queens, some aircraft are deployed for political or
mission reasons, and yanking planes won't increase hours. In fact it tends to make a bad situation worse.

Not exactly sure what you're saying with your last point but concur with the rest. I've said the same for awhile, if National wants to pull a plane where are they going to send it?  To another "under performer"?  To be very blunt, they need to put up or shut up on the issue.

some interesting tidbits from the cap vector.  Looks like av-gas is back in.

During the calendar year 2014 CAP accepted 11 new Turbo Stationair (Model T206H) aircraft, purchased with FY 13 procurement funds, and all have been distributed to the wings. The FY 14 aircraft buy consists of 21 Cessna 172s with glider tow package s installed. The final delivery dates are still to be determined, but we anticipate receiving the first of them in the spring of 2015. In early October General Vazquez, Don Rowland, John Desmarais and Gary Schneider met with members of Textron Aviation at their facility in Wichita, Kansas to discuss CAP aircraft and imagery acquisition strategy. A key topic for this meeting was Cessna's decision to discontinue avgas fueled engines in their 182T aircraft and replacing them with SMA compression ignition engines powered by Jet A. Following this meeting Cessna representatives agreed to reconsider their decision and to continue to offer CAP avgas fueled 182Ts.

Quote from: brent.teal on January 13, 2015, 01:55:52 AM
some interesting tidbits from the cap vector.  Looks like av-gas is back in.

During the calendar year 2014 CAP accepted 11 new Turbo Stationair (Model T206H) aircraft, purchased with FY 13 procurement funds, and all have been distributed to the wings. The FY 14 aircraft buy consists of 21 Cessna 172s with glider tow package s installed. The final delivery dates are still to be determined, but we anticipate receiving the first of them in the spring of 2015. In early October General Vazquez, Don Rowland, John Desmarais and Gary Schneider met with members of Textron Aviation at their facility in Wichita, Kansas to discuss CAP aircraft and imagery acquisition strategy. A key topic for this meeting was Cessna's decision to discontinue avgas fueled engines in their 182T aircraft and replacing them with SMA compression ignition engines powered by Jet A. Following this meeting Cessna representatives agreed to reconsider their decision and to continue to offer CAP avgas fueled 182Ts.

I wonder how much extra money Cessna is going to charge us to deviate from their production plans. ::)

The Diesels are close to twice the cost for the engines and overhauls.

I saw this topic and my reaction was "Yes, we should use one of them".

There's no reason to choose.  Each have advantages and disadvantages.  Neither fuel is going away and both are available on the east cost at every airport I've been at.  Embracing the "brilliance of and", CAP should evaluate both of them and choose the one that makes sense.

With a higher price and lower useful load, I'm challenged to embrace choosing JT-A, but it should be evaluated.