I was looking at the webpage of my new client/employer and found that they had acquired Schweizer Aircraft... here is a seriously cool airplane - we NEED this airplane:
SA-38B (http://www.sikorsky.com/vgn-ext-templating-SIK/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=709f45d57ef68110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&provcmid=bfa955f4a9d98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofvcmid=56787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofid=46787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000a____&movcmid=43a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&moid=33a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000a____)
Just think of the homeland security missions we could be flying!
No 3rd seat for the scanner. Low wing not so good. Up to 20,000 ft, good for High Birf. . . .VERY high bird.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 21, 2009, 09:15:17 PM
I was looking at the webpage of my new client/employer and found that they had acquired Schweizer Aircraft... here is a seriously cool airplane - we NEED this airplane:
SA-38B (http://www.sikorsky.com/vgn-ext-templating-SIK/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=709f45d57ef68110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&provcmid=bfa955f4a9d98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofvcmid=56787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofid=46787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000a____&movcmid=43a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&moid=33a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000a____)
Just think of the homeland security missions we could be flying!
Sure, we could do that, as soon as somebody figures out who's going to pay for them. (1 million a copy with the surveillance gear installed.)
Not to mention having to qualify and keep current, CAP pilots in turbine aircraft operations. (That will be a lot of trips to Flight Safety.)
But hey, it's only money.
I live down the road from Schweizer. Squadron I used to attend is on the opposite side of the runway. The 38B is designed for sensors not mark 2 eyeballs...
Quote from: Pumbaa on March 21, 2009, 09:57:13 PM
I live down the road from Schweizer. Squadron I used to attend is on the opposite side of the runway. The 38B is designed for sensors not mark 2 eyeballs...
Good job at being a killjoy. If only we had the money an aircraft like that would be awsome.
Quote from: PHall on March 21, 2009, 09:55:03 PM
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 21, 2009, 09:15:17 PM
I was looking at the webpage of my new client/employer and found that they had acquired Schweizer Aircraft... here is a seriously cool airplane - we NEED this airplane:
SA-38B (http://www.sikorsky.com/vgn-ext-templating-SIK/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=709f45d57ef68110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&provcmid=bfa955f4a9d98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofvcmid=56787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofid=46787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000a____&movcmid=43a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&moid=33a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000a____)
Just think of the homeland security missions we could be flying!
Sure, we could do that, as soon as somebody figures out who's going to pay for them. (1 million a copy with the surveillance gear installed.)
Not to mention having to qualify and keep current, CAP pilots in turbine aircraft operations. (That will be a lot of trips to Flight Safety.)
But hey, it's only money.
It's a three seat depending on the mission equipment. The seats look like they face out towards the bubble windows in front of the wings. 85 knot loiter/mission speed, ten hour endurance. Put a FLIR in it, synthetic aperture radar, and we'd have a real SAR platform.
Million dollars a copy? Sure, we already are paying about $300K for new 182s that can't do anywhere near what this could do.
I can
dream, can't I?
Quote from: Pumbaa on March 21, 2009, 09:57:13 PM
I live down the road from Schweizer. Squadron I used to attend is on the opposite side of the runway. The 38B is designed for sensors not mark 2 eyeballs...
And maybe we should be advancing beyond just looking out the windows with our eyes. About time CAP got some serious sensors in its airplanes...
... the 4000 foot take off run is a concern, however...
:D
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 21, 2009, 10:03:22 PM
... the 4000 foot take off run is a concern, however...
That's probably with enough fuel to ensure the repeated use of the relief tubes.
A more normal GW might give a slightly more normal takeoff roll.
Those big long wings and two PT-6s should mean a pretty good amount of "oomph" on take off.
If your looking for a kill-joy, Ill do it. I would never support a purchase of a piece of equipment like this for CAP. When you start putting the equipment on the aircraft like it was designed, FLIR, Gyrocams, etc. I would rather see the aircraft purchased and put into use by agencies that can fully exploit its capabilities. This isn't a SAR platform, its a surveillance platform. And for those who think you can use a FLIR a couple times per year or even a couple times per month and maintain at an acceptable level, again your dreaming. And I would venture to guess a very small number of our aircrews would ever be able to stay airborne for 10 hours to be able to list that as an advantage.
State Departments of Justice would be first on my list if someone wants to pay for it.
As far as 2 PT-6 engines and the avionics this aircraft has, I would again say a small..very small, number of our pilots are even qualified to fly it. Not to mention stay minimally current in it. Yeah, I know, many of you think the Air Force should pay for all of our transitions, but it aint gonna happen.
The maintenance and maintenance costs alone would cripple us. This is an aircraft that also has a crew chief and dedicated ground support crews, not Cadets and Senior Members who completed an online course. Keep dreaming kids.
I would also say a very few of our observers are trained, or would be willing to train to the level that would be required to operate what this aircraft was meant to accomplish. Sorry.....I think the 182, 206 and Airvan are about all we need. If we want toys, put them on those aircraft.
There are a couple regulars on CAPTalk who have experience flying thee types of aircraft.
(Wheeeeee...that Flying Pig guy is a jerk!)
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 21, 2009, 11:36:58 PM
(Wheeeeee...that Flying Pig guy is a jerk!)
Dude..... Why did you have to mess with the dream?
Reality is a painful topic. ;D
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 21, 2009, 10:01:33 PM
Quote from: PHall on March 21, 2009, 09:55:03 PM
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 21, 2009, 09:15:17 PM
I was looking at the webpage of my new client/employer and found that they had acquired Schweizer Aircraft... here is a seriously cool airplane - we NEED this airplane:
SA-38B (http://www.sikorsky.com/vgn-ext-templating-SIK/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=709f45d57ef68110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&provcmid=bfa955f4a9d98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofvcmid=56787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofid=46787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000a____&movcmid=43a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&moid=33a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000a____)
Just think of the homeland security missions we could be flying!
Sure, we could do that, as soon as somebody figures out who's going to pay for them. (1 million a copy with the surveillance gear installed.)
Not to mention having to qualify and keep current, CAP pilots in turbine aircraft operations. (That will be a lot of trips to Flight Safety.)
But hey, it's only money.
Million dollars a copy? Sure, we already are paying about $300K for new 182s that can't do anywhere near what this could do.
I can dream, can't I?
Keep going. Base price for a new 182 is $384,500. Throw in all the goodies and extras we have done post-factory, and we're probably spending about $415,000-$430,000 per bird.
...and the curious thing is, CAP will spend 400K on a plane... but nothing on a building for the squadron to meet in (!)
Get some surplus OV-10 Broncos for a lot cheaper than the dream bird ;D
That is a sweet bird though. Did someone pee in your cheerios this morning Flying Pig?????? ;)
Some of the PJ's at PJOC mentioned sliding out of the back of the OV-10's
for insertion to sensitive areas. The OV-10 is a twin tail. Pilot rotates from
level flight to about 45 degrees to get the jumpers out of the back. The
rear sensors are removed as well as the rear door to accommodate the jumpers. We could qualify some GTM in low level parachute jumping to
put a ground team on the ground right where they need to be :D :D :D ;)
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 22, 2009, 01:11:59 AM
...and the curious thing is, CAP will spend 400K on a plane... but nothing on a building for the squadron to meet in (!)
because they can send the plane somewhere else when the squadron cc doesn't do their job... >:D
I like the idea of CAP putting out a bid-for-contract for new aircraft, rather than picking off-the-shelf designs. We're big enough, we've got enough cash, and our fleet is truly remarkable.
I love Cessna products, from singles to jets, but the company simply isn't very responsive to our needs, and has priced us out of a reasonable market. I'm curious what the results would be if we wrote contract specifications for a mission airplane! Its worth a shot.
Hopefully with a better sensor package then a mere Mark 1 Mod 0 Eyeball...
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 22, 2009, 03:36:52 AM
Hopefully with a better sensor package then a mere Mark 1 Mod 0 Eyeball...
You know, the Coast Guard says their most effective search tool is the Mk I, Mod 0 eyeball.
Quote from: Senior on March 22, 2009, 01:17:27 AM
We could qualify some GTM in low level parachute jumping to put a ground team on the ground right where they need to be :D :D :D ;)
Too late.
I think I was still a GTM when this was taken. And yes, that's pass-in-review.
I chime in and agree with FP on this..
There is NO killjoy.................just pure reality
CAP is worried about show room new aircraft and these aircraft are surveillance from the go
ONE PT6 engine in replacement costs is nearly that of an 2 yr old C182 G1000
AND the TPE331 engines in the OV10 Bronco would scare the living daylights out of the CAP budget. Can you you spell hot starts, transient temperatures on start, 50K fuel controls, $200 to $700 ignitor plugs, FOD damage from crud on the ramp, CAP doing FOD walks, does anyone really get this idea??????
SO my dear friends in CAP, unless one has a training program, and with turbines, I would venture to guess, every 6 month checkouts, would be a safe bet, and HEFTY Maintenance budgets........ this and ANY turbine program demands more vigilance and dinero that ONE Wing can support. CAP's consolidated MX program money would be depleted in short order with turbine MX costs.. Ever see a shelled turbine engine??? I have on numerous times and also did hot section repairs on engines that those highly capable military pilots that did not pay attention to the gauges on start........ There are reasons to pay attention and I would and could imagine a number of problems in CAP when it comes to turbine engine operation AND repair
This is ONE area CAPers would probably would exercise a little caution in when it comes to folks IN THE KNOW about a little more than piston operation.....
I say say keep dreamin and while your doing that maybe CAP can get some stimulus money for that,HUH???
Also, on the OV-10, the QECAs are not interchangeable because of the different (counter-rotating) gearboxes. The spares costs just doubled from the output shaft forward. That counts the props, too.
When the supply of L-4's and L-5's and L=16's dried up in the 1960's CAP did invite aircraft companies to come up with a plane specifically for CAP. Cessna, Luscombe and Piper all submitted designs, but none were accepted. Mainly the designs were for off-the=shelf aircraft with modifications to meet CAP needs.
Wow...that helidoc guy is a jerk! >:D
We don't need a twin, why incur extra fuel costs?
The AC in question does not look like a good platform for visual SAR, which is still a major part of our mission.
Heliodoc and FP are great motivators ;D
I know that turbines are out of the question.
I always liked the look of the OV-10. I bet they are fun to fly when someone is not trying to shoot you down. If I had all the money in the world I would have an OV-10 as a personal aircraft.
NIN you are something. Did you perform the proper PLF? ;D. I am joking
of course.
OK....a compromise then.
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 22, 2009, 03:32:35 PM
OK....a compromise then.
Supposedly, we're already flying those!! ;D
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1981.70
A thread from about 2 years ago where I posted some of those images I found on one of those "special operations" sites.
Quote from: Senior on March 22, 2009, 03:27:30 PM
NIN you are something. Did you perform the proper PLF? ;D. I am joking of course.
Nah, PLF onto concrete would have *hurt*. I did a nice tippy-toe two step standup right dead-center where I had intended to land (actually, I landed about half-way between the squadron 1 commander and the cadet commander and his staff.. about 10-15 feet short of dead center, but about the best place I could have landed and not taken anybody out). The reviewing officer, General Art Tesner from the MI ANG, was quite impressed.
(considering I'd never seen or flown that particular parachute until I deployed it over my head, I did a pretty decent job..)
Thanks, Flying Pig
Just trying to help.... There is plenty of Kool Aid out there just not plenty of sugar to make those dreams SAWEEEEEEEEEETT, like everyone would like!!!!
>:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 22, 2009, 03:32:35 PM
OK....a compromise then.
You know, we had a
member owned O-2A flying missions in CAWG for a couple of years about 10 years ago.
Airplane was GREAT for search missions (it's got extra windows in the cockpit roof and in the right side plus a camera window in the floor), but you could hear the whining about the costs big time everytime the owner put in a 108.
He was almost never allowed to play at SAREX's because of the costs involved. And if the IC could find another aircraft for his mission they wouldn't use the O-2 for the same reason, cost.
But this was an airplane where you could put in a crew of four and fill the tanks and not have to worry about not having enough power, even in the summer in the Sierra's.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 21, 2009, 09:15:17 PM
I was looking at the webpage of my new client/employer and found that they had acquired Schweizer Aircraft... here is a seriously cool airplane - we NEED this airplane:
SA-38B (http://www.sikorsky.com/vgn-ext-templating-SIK/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=709f45d57ef68110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&provcmid=bfa955f4a9d98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofvcmid=56787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&mofid=46787a0017f98110VgnVCM1000001382000a____&movcmid=43a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000aRCRD&moid=33a86d890c7b8110VgnVCM1000001382000a____)
Just think of the homeland security missions we could be flying!
The real trick, is for me to somehow convince my new employer/client that I should get a ride in this plane. Granted, I am supposed to be working on helicopter software, but I would way more want to get a ride in the SA-38 than any of the helos... maybe I will try to work it into the negotiations if they ever try to get me to be a direct hire employee...
CAP has had some O-2's in the past. There is a gentleman in Madison MS who is a member of the CAF that has one. It's painted in USAF style now, but it used to belong to MSWG.
There are a bunch of those in AMARC right now, according to the ARMARC listing. (26 currently in the AMARC inventory).
Drag those bad boys out, give them a nice refurb, throw the Aspen glass and a couple GNS430s into the panel with a Becker and off you go. :) 26 aircraft is enough for 2 per region and a couple training birds to travel the country with game show hostesses and unclaimed prizes.
A number of years back, a production outfit hung a WESCAM ball on a 337 and used it for the X-Games, specifically to get footage of the skysurfers. Flying formation with a CASA 212 at 13 or 14K, they had tremendous stabilized footage of the pair (camera flyer and skysurfer) from exit to deployment. The really neato thing was the foreshortening from the extreme gyrostabilized telephoto lens. You'd swear these guys in freefall are about to smack into the ground....
I'd rather put a sensor platform in that bad boy.. Loiter time is pretty good, plus cruise is much higher, etc. Yeah, yeah, Mx is higher due to the twin, retracts, etc. Uh huh.
Uh, no.
The airplane we should be flying is the Cessna 172/182....and I'd argue without glass. The whole point is to increase the number of proficient and capable operators. The platform is proven to be safe, reliable, and cost effective. That is the value proposition.
However, if we wanted to get creative with a multi-engine (and we don't), I'd suggest this to be a better option than the one proposed by the OP...it was designed specifically for SAR/observation type missions:
Vulcanair P68 Observer/2 (http://www.vulcanair.com.au/documents/PresentationSpecialMissionsP68Observer.pdf)
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/6/8/1483866.jpg)
After seeing video of them peeling the wings off in flight like a banana, I'm not convinced on the Partenavia. While I'm sure you can overstress & pull the wings off an O-2 as well, experience in the Slow-FAC role shows that they're really built for that kind of thing.
The O-2 would never get added to our inventory, so this is just useless tilting at windmills overall.
I do very much like the O-2 from a "less complex than your average twin" standpoint, but as I'm sure everybody is quick to point out, transitioning your average bug-smasher driver to the push-me, pull-you configuration is not exactly that "simple." Then there is aircraft complexity, retracts, maintenance, etc.
Still, it would be fun.
Quote from: NIN on March 23, 2009, 02:25:51 PM
After seeing video of them peeling the wings off in flight like a banana, I'm not convinced on the Partenavia.
Partenavia went bankrupt in the late 90's/early 2000's and was acquired by Vulcanair. A number of service bulletins and airworthiness directives on wing fatigue were published to address the issue. I wouldn't consider it to be an issue to be overly concerned with on a late model/new purchase. But we're not buying them anyway, so the issue is rather moot. :)
On the P68, take a look at where the props are in terms of the doors... and then think about having to get out of the plane in a hurry, like a cockpit fire...
...eyes of observers are NOT the best way to go for SAR, IMHO. I have studied this as an engineer. It's time for automated sensors, computer driven image analysis both inflight and on data relayed to the ground. Send up a sensor platform that automatically images and geo-references the ground beneath and to the sides of the aircraft and transmits those images directly to the mission base in near real time. At mission base, have a team (of cadets?) review each image in as much detail as necessary as they come in. Your POD would skyrocket, and your response time to the victims would improve dramatically. You can still have and observer and a scanner to further improve things.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 23, 2009, 05:08:30 PM
On the P68, take a look at where the props are in terms of the doors... and then think about having to get out of the plane in a hurry, like a cockpit fire...
For all those cockpit fires that occur and require a swift exit, right?... ;) :P Besides, the LH door swings out toward the prop, in essence directing crew to the rear of the plane and and away from the prop on exit. Again, not a concern that would rate high at all on the list of risks.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 23, 2009, 05:08:30 PM...eyes of observers are NOT the best way to go for SAR, IMHO. I have studied this as an engineer. It's time for automated sensors, computer driven image analysis both inflight and on data relayed to the ground. Send up a sensor platform that automatically images and geo-references the ground beneath and to the sides of the aircraft and transmits those images directly to the mission base in near real time. At mission base, have a team (of cadets?) review each image in as much detail as necessary as they come in. Your POD would skyrocket, and your response time to the victims would improve dramatically. You can still have and observer and a scanner to further improve things.
It's a cost/benefit issue. That is our value proposition...and that is why trained crews in a 172 should continue to be the preferred method of operation for our organization.
Quote from: A.Member on March 23, 2009, 05:16:23 PM
. . .
It's a cost/benefit issue. That is our value proposition...and that is why trained crews in a 172 should continue to be the preferred method of operation for our organization.
What if the cost of adding a sensor as I have described was only $10,000 per plane (we had a plan to do this)? Your 172 now flies a grid search and is able to record down to say, one foot resolution, everything on the ground within 1/2 mile either side of the airplane. Then, the ground team back at base analyzes each picture as much as needed. POD >95% costing only slightly more than the original airplane. Infrared and night time work also possible.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 23, 2009, 06:08:24 PM
Quote from: A.Member on March 23, 2009, 05:16:23 PM
. . .
It's a cost/benefit issue. That is our value proposition...and that is why trained crews in a 172 should continue to be the preferred method of operation for our organization.
What if the cost of adding a sensor as I have described was only $10,000 per plane (we had a plan to do this)? Your 172 now flies a grid search and is able to record down to say, one foot resolution, everything on the ground within 1/2 mile either side of the airplane. Then, the ground team back at base analyzes each picture as much as needed. POD >95% costing only slightly more than the original airplane. Infrared and night time work also possible.
Do you know of a sensor that can be added to a 172 and do a capture as you describe for $10K? I certainly don't.
It still doesn't negate the need for analysts (ie. scanners) on the ground nor does it necessarily increase their efficiency or effectiveness. Time is a factor...although if you threw enough bodies at screens perhaps you have a multiplying effect.
If you have this magic solution, then great! I'm all for it. However, such a solution is does not exist that I'm aware of....although I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Quote from: A.Member on March 23, 2009, 07:48:38 PM
Do you know of a sensor that can be added to a 172 and do a capture as you describe for $10K? I certainly don't.
It still doesn't negate the need for analysts (ie. scanners) on the ground nor does it necessarily increase their efficiency or effectiveness. Time is a factor...although if you threw enough bodies at screens perhaps you have a multiplying effect.
If you have this magic solution, then great! I'm all for it. However, such a solution is does not exist that I'm aware of....although I'm willing to be proven wrong.
I was in the process of designing it just before I was laid off.
The electronics were either in pods that attached to the wing struts or inside new wingtips. A high bandwidth datalink beamed the image data down to mission base almost as fast as the images were taken. Self contained GPS receivers and inertial measurement systems stabilized the images and allowed the images to be tagged with precise lat/lon data - in other words, once the image gets beamed down to mission base and displayed on a PC, clicking on a pixel of the image would provide you with the exact lat/lon of that spot on the ground. The mission observer would use a tablet PC with a wireless connection to the pod/wingtip to control operation. If you had more than one aircraft in the air, one aircraft could act as a highbird data relay - allowing 100 - 200 mile range. Mission base could control the system directly and could even text commands to the aircrew or establish a full duplex voice channel on top of the image transfers. Sadly, the company probably won't build this now that I don't work there and I am unlikely ever to have the time to go through all the FAA certification work required for STCs on my own...
...but the point remains that we could be much more useful IF we began to make the transition to more advanced technology - sensors for search and rescue, not just eyeballs. And, if sensors then we need a platform that is designed for carrying advanced low cost sensors. Which is why I think that SA-38B looks so freaking cool...
OK, I know the SA-38B is not the ideal airplane for what we need, but it's still a cool looking airplane. Which was my original point.
Interesting what people send you...
QuoteDo you know of a sensor that can be added to a 172 and do a capture as you describe for $10K? I certainly don't.
I was in the process of designing it just before I was laid off.
The electronics were either in pods that attached to the wing struts...
It just so happens, in a CAPTalk discussion (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2221.0) from 18 months ago...
The JD3 Aerial Imaging System (AIS) represents the state of the art in airborne digital imaging equipment. It is designed to attach to the steel tubular spring type fixed landing gear of various single engine Cessna aircraft within 30 minutes (after initial installation) making it easy to deploy almost anywhere in the world. After initial installation of the JD3 AIS, The Camera Housing Assembly, Computer Mount Assembly, CDI Assembly and Power Supply Assembly can be removed and re-installed by the pilot in 15 minutes with only a Logbook entry.
FAA STC approval for most Cessna Type 152, 172 and 182
>Spatial Resolution 0.15m (6") to 1m
>Accuracy 1m/2m RMSE (.5m/1m product)
>Four Band Camera System (Visible [R,G, B] and Color IR)
>Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and Global Positioning System (GPS)
>Adds 29 pounds to the weight of the aircraft
The links on the old CAPTalk thread are dead, but here's the company that helped develop the system and owns 40 of the systems, and their site shows a map of where they're located.
http://www.simwright.com/aerialimagery1.htm
If they'd sell one, I suspect it would be more than $10k, though.
Mike
Yeah, I went through the materials cost and it was way below $10,000... the GPS/INS/Magnetometer is now one little chip from Analog Devices at about $600 in single quantities. A single board computer running Linux is only a few hundred, an imager not much more... and the datalink is COTS for about $2000. Like I wrote, the major effort is regulatory, both FAA and FCC. The big difference with my idea and the rest is that my system was designed to transmit images from the airplane to the base, not just store them until the airplane landed. In other words, when the airplane has searched a grid, we now have a complete digital image record of what the airplane flew over that can then be reviewed as needed.
It's not hard for me to imagine a larger aircraft specifically designed for carrying several (say five) imaging cameras with sufficient resolution each to cover everything under and to the sides of the airplane for two miles at a swath. The aircrew's purpose is then to fly the sensors and if they or someone on the ground sees something they can then maneuver in closer to confirm visually and get a close up image.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on March 24, 2009, 12:12:10 PM
It's not hard for me to imagine a larger aircraft specifically designed for carrying several (say five) imaging cameras with sufficient resolution each to cover everything under and to the sides of the airplane for two miles at a swath. The aircrew's purpose is then to fly the sensors and if they or someone on the ground sees something they can then maneuver in closer to confirm visually and get a close up image.
Larger aircraft? Here's a hint: One of our forum participants actually flew aerial survey last year for a subcontractor to the company that provides the imagery that winds up in the Live.com "birds eye view" mapping product (try it: http://maps.live.com. The low-altitude "birds eye view" images are all part of the image sets that his company helped provide)
He spent the better part of about 8 months flying around a very plain-jane C-172 equipped with 5 very high resolution cameras on a very tightly prescribed flight pattern that was dictated by a computer system. I don't recall the exact #s, but seem to recall it was +/- 100ft and left/right no more than 200-ish feet off the ground track.
The plane had a computer rack on the back containing a georeference platform (high-resolution GPS + INS), a computer system to georeference and store the images, an interface to a HUD-type device to plot deviations to the flight path, removeable hard drives to send the day's "take" back to the home office, and not much room for much more. The cameras were mounted in the baggage area, one looking out the baggage door to the left, the other thru a hole in the fuselage to the right, and three in the belly (straight down, oblique forward and oblique aft).
I think that high-rez imagery is not only doable for CAP, but I think its going to become essential going forward. A guy snapping photos with a Nikon and a tablet PC in the back seat is an OK "on-demand" item, but its not suitable for a stable, repeatable "on demand" sort of thing.
EDIT: I meant to say, too, that while our "hyperspectral imaging" is all neato, what about the visible spectrum? Lenses and optics beat the Mk 1, Mod 0 eyeball hands down.
I'm the chap who did the aerial survey flying, and here are a few pics of the system. The rear seat is removed to accommodate the computer rack visible in the 2nd pic. In addition to the camera ports cut in the baggage door, opposite side of the fuselage, and floor, it also requires significant modification to the exhaust system in order to port the exhaust gases aft of the camera bay (aka the baggage area). There are around 50 aircraft so-equipped operating all over the country. If you spot a C-172 with a huge 12-foot exhaust pipe and holes in the baggage door and opposite side, you've found one.
It'd be perfect for CAP use, but unfortunately, it's a completely proprietary system, not something that could be bought off-the-shelf. The cameras are custom-made, the software that runs the show is developed in-house, etc. This system is operated single pilot, though I'd expect that CAP would operate it with a second crewmember to operate the camera system and help watch for traffic. (As it is, the pilot's attention is pretty much glued to the glareshield display throughout each photo run. )
The idea of using a 172 to take pictures is not new. And the idea of using a computer to direct the pilot and GPS/INS to reference the pictures is one that lots of people are having.
What CAP needs however is the ability to downlink those pictures as they are being taken. We don't want a system where the pilot has to fly back to base to offload a disk drive after four hours of flying - we want something that allows us to have more than a single pair of eyes look at a scene for more than a few seconds. We need to be able to say that if we have imaged a grid, then we know with high assurance that if there was something to see, we would have seen it. And if there was something to see, then we would be able to do something about it within minutes of seeing it.
The other big selling point needs to be that the system does not require any mods to the airplane. No holes to cut, no wires to run, no crew members to leave on the ground because the equipment is too big or heavy. As far I as could see, no one really has tried to make something like that happen. Yet.
BTW, we had a lady in our squadron who also flew these types of missions.
Unfortunately, "real time" and "high resolution" are currently mutually exclusive concepts as it pertains to aerial imagery.
Quote from: Mustang on March 24, 2009, 06:27:23 PM
Unfortunately, "real time" and "high resolution" are currently mutually exclusive concepts as it pertains to aerial imagery.
Not when an engineering
stud like me is on the job! Oooops, I got laid off, sorry.
No, seriously I had a plan for how to do this. It could be done; it just needs someone with the time to do it.
Quote from: Mustang on March 24, 2009, 06:27:23 PM
Unfortunately, "real time" and "high resolution" are currently mutually exclusive concepts as it pertains to aerial imagery.
For CAP at least. At work a couple coworkers of mine had 10 MBps networking up/down running at close to 200 miles out, on L and S band TM frequencies. Granted, on the ground we used what is known in highly technical terms as a "big freaking dish!"... (see Figure 1).
Note the expected range circle on page 17. http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00001870/01/214633.pdf
Quote from: MikeD on March 25, 2009, 06:32:22 AM
For CAP at least. At work a couple coworkers of mine had 10 MBps networking up/down running at close to 200 miles out, on L and S band TM frequencies. Granted, on the ground we used what is known in highly technical terms as a "big freaking dish!"... (see Figure 1).
Note the expected range circle on page 17. http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00001870/01/214633.pdf
Oh man, talk geek to me! :)
(even though about 70% of that went straight over my head, it was interesting reading)
Seriously, though, compared to the money spent on Archer over the last 5-6 years, a COTS alternative to using satellite telephone technology to email pictures would be a drop in the proverbial bucket. I'm not sure of the legalities of using it in an airplane, but as broader "mesh" WWAN technologies like WiMax come online throughout the country, my bet is that we see the ability to do this kind of "node on the network" thing go up and the cost go down, and also broaden the coverage area while not demanding the crew fly at a Flight Level on O2. :D
Heck, it was 10+ years ago that a couple of us were investigating using a Doppler DF unit, GPS, an electronic compass unit, packet radio & a laptop with some custom mapping software in 2+ vehicles for "semi-automated ELT homing"
(mind you, at the time I was living in Michigan: Flat as a board pretty much everywhere. Signal propagation, DF sensitivity, terrain blocking, etc, were all different factors. However, now I live out in New England where they have these funny things called "hills" ... not exactly conducive to the same style of DFing...)I could even foresee a plane being put up, much like the airborne repeater "High Birds" we have now, to serve as a relay platform for high-speed networking. A "High Router Bird" for lack of a better term, to help get far flung packets back to the HQ site.
NIN - check your PMs.
Anyone know if their are any OV-1 Mohawks out in the desert at AMARC we could get our hands on? GREAT downward visibility. ;D I'm glad you guys are really discussing a need for better sensing capability to keep/make CAP more useful and relevant.
While it's not what I would call hi resolution the sensor suite off a Shadow UAV might bear looking at. I believe it is under 40lbs (the WHOLE system may weigh more) and the ball is under 1 foot in diameter. It's called the POP 200/300 and it's manufactured by Israeli Aircraft Industries. As a UAV system it's already set up to be controlled by and downlinked to the ground.
All it takes is money ;D
Quote from: blackrain on March 26, 2009, 02:40:55 AM
Anyone know if their are any OV-1 Mohawks out in the desert at AMARC we could get our hands on? GREAT downward visibility. ;D
Turbine engines and CAP do not go together. Period.
Quote from: PHall on March 26, 2009, 03:37:14 AMTurbine engines and CAP do not go together. Period.
Meh. Maybe not for the average rank-and-file CAP pilot, but we've got plenty of guys in the ranks who fly turbine equipment for a living.
Quote from: blackrain on March 26, 2009, 02:40:55 AMWhile it's not what I would call hi resolution the sensor suite off a Shadow UAV might bear looking at. I believe it is under 40lbs (the WHOLE system may weigh more) and the ball is under 1 foot in diameter. It's called the POP 200/300 and it's manufactured by Israeli Aircraft Industries. As a UAV system it's already set up to be controlled by and downlinked to the ground.
I believe that (or something similar) is what they're using on NVWG's aircraft for the simulated Predator stuff.
Quote from: PHall on March 26, 2009, 03:37:14 AM
Quote from: blackrain on March 26, 2009, 02:40:55 AM
Anyone know if their are any OV-1 Mohawks out in the desert at AMARC we could get our hands on? GREAT downward visibility. ;D
Turbine engines and CAP do not go together. Period.
And the "Widowmaker"? Yeah, not a good combo. I have a couple hrs in an OV-1 as an "incentive" ride about 20+ years ago, but for CAP purposes, no.
Hell yah we need this its so cool.
Quote from: Mustang on March 26, 2009, 03:51:10 AM
Quote from: PHall on March 26, 2009, 03:37:14 AMTurbine engines and CAP do not go together. Period.
Meh. Maybe not for the average rank-and-file CAP pilot, but we've got plenty of guys in the ranks who fly turbine equipment for a living.
Your right. I know a few here in CA, but on the grand scheme of things, you guys are still a very small....small number I would imagine. So keeping that in mind, Gentlemen, I am offering my services and I will step up to the plate. I WILL allow one of you or your company to send me to Flight Safety to get checked out in any aircraft you choose for me. :clap:
Not all at once, my email server is bogging down.....
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 26, 2009, 03:37:41 PM
Quote from: Mustang on March 26, 2009, 03:51:10 AM
Quote from: PHall on March 26, 2009, 03:37:14 AMTurbine engines and CAP do not go together. Period.
Meh. Maybe not for the average rank-and-file CAP pilot, but we've got plenty of guys in the ranks who fly turbine equipment for a living.
Your right. I know a few here in CA, but on the grand scheme of things, you guys are still a very small....small number I would imagine. So keeping that in mind, Gentlemen, I am offering my services and I will step up to the plate. I WILL allow one of you or your company to send me to Flight Safety to get checked out in any aircraft you choose for me. :clap:
Not all at once, my email server is bogging down.....
;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: PHall on March 26, 2009, 03:37:14 AM
Quote from: blackrain on March 26, 2009, 02:40:55 AM
Anyone know if their are any OV-1 Mohawks out in the desert at AMARC we could get our hands on? GREAT downward visibility. ;D
Turbine engines and CAP do not go together. Period.
Just in case anyone missed it........I was joking about the Mohawk. With the possible exception of the O-2, twin engines, piston or turbine are generally too expensive to justify for most of our missions. I'm not sure how we would budget for the maintenance on the ejection seats either ;D joke. POSSIBLY a turbine single like the Caravan or Questair Kodiak could be useful for some missions. When I used to live in east Arkansas many AG operations used there used turbine single taildraggers so there really no magic where turbines are concerned. I know we don't fly as much as AG operations but they do offer atvantages.
Most definitely we need to upgrade our remote sensing capability regardless of our platform. THAT will keep us viable and relevant.
SA3b
DEA had problems with this bird....... read it on landings .com
Being cannibalized after problems
So yes we need relevant and capable aircraft
yes, there are a number of CAP folks that are turbine operators.....but more that are not
Nothing wrong with the C182 / C206 airframes
Think 1 AF is "gonna" buy us some turbine powered aircraft?? Debatable
NHQ "gonna" provide training and repair??? Better get your best grant writers on duty 'cuz I do not think 1AF is going to hand us keys to turbines just 'cuz we are Civil Air Patrol
Gentlemen....start your engines. The Turbine Soloy Cessna 206 Mark II.
Since 1983 Soloy has produced more than 60 FAA STC approved Cessna 206 conversions using the 418 HP Rolls-Royce / Allison 250-C20S Turboshaft engine combined with Soloy's Patented Turbine-Pac gearbox drive system. The conversion adds extreme reliability, versatility and performance to the already tough Cessna 206 airframe. It is also one of the quietest high-performance singles available giving the Soloy 206 high marks as a neighbor-friendly aircraft. The Soloy Cessna 206s are used world-wide for a variety of applications ranging from Police surveillance to skydiving. Here are some of the outstanding features of this great aircraft:
Proven Rolls-Royce 250-C20S engine with worldwide parts and service support system. 3500 hour TBO.
Soloy Turbine-Pac gearbox and installation.
Reverse air inlet flow for great FOD protection in bush flying environments.
Slow 1810 RPM prop speed for quiet vibration-free operation.
Installs in U206G, TU206G, 206H & T206H from 1977 models to present.
Dependable 3-blade Hartzell 95 inch propeller. (Full feathering, constant speed).
Jet fuel capacity: 1977-1979 models 76 gal useable, 1979-present 88 gal useable with sierra 52 gal and Flint 30 gallon auxiliary fuel systems available. Fuel burn about 25 GPH in normal cruise mode.
Direct-reading turbine instruments with digital fuel flow and TOT systems. (Not compatible with Garmin glass panel)
Standard cabin heater with arctic bleed air supplement optionally available.
Airframe requirements: 28 volt electrical system, Cessna HD Landing gear, Cessna floatplane rudder system on all conversions, no interfering aftermarket kits or accessories.
Compatible with Wipaire, Edo, PK floats with separate STC installation kits.
Forgot about the Soloy conversion , Flying Pig
Yes it has been around awhile especially in the horse and wild burro corralling in N CA and NV to include some piston operators
But I forgot the cost of a Soloy conversion..... wasn't it approaching 100K+??
Be a great conversion to our fleet BUT the dinero
CAP would have to ADD FOD walks to their FLM FL taskbook...which in my mind, is no big deal
What say u??
Again, I dont see a need. I would say buying Turbo Charged aircraft would be my first option. But if someone really wanted to. I think they are about $150K to convert. So for a 206 your probably looking at $500k just for the plane. I looked into the switch for the plan at work. We fly a lot of SAR about 10,000ft. and I thought it would be nice to have the umpf.
I have spent many hours (in fact learned to fly) in the eastern mountains where elevations reach a bit over 6000'. Mountain flying definitely has it's special challenges and techniques.
Given the nature of our operational flying I would think it very important that our BIG mountain brethren out west had the most appropriate tools for the job. I would think that includes turbine equipment.
Do those of you flying out west feel that 182/206 normal air breathers are adequate?
Just as I hit the post button, FP kind of answered my question with his Turbo preference.
Makes good sense.
The 206 I fly regularly is a Turbo. I routinely fly it between 8,000 and 15,000 on SAR operations. Topped off with 2 crew members and survival gear in the back and a 2000lb O2 bottle built in, we do pretty good. Of course, the times I have had to hop over the mountain to Bishop for gas, Its a pain to try and climb to 16000 ft. before I can come back over the the Fresno side.
Quote from: aveighter on March 27, 2009, 04:26:40 PM
I have spent many hours (in fact learned to fly) in the eastern mountains where elevations reach a bit over 6000'. Mountain flying definitely has it's special challenges and techniques.
Given the nature of our operational flying I would think it very important that our BIG mountain brethren out west had the most appropriate tools for the job. I would think that includes turbine equipment.
Do those of you flying out west feel that 182/206 normal air breathers are adequate?
While I think the performance of non-turbocharged aircraft are adequate--barely--in serious mountains, the safety margin is clearly not. Turbos definitely help, but in the case of the new T182Ts, they have become so heavy with all the added stuff like 24-G seats, shoulder harness airbags, O2 systems, etc that they are effectively a two-person airplane.
The 206--especially the turbocharged variant--is a superb option. CAP has 15 of these, distributed amongst AK, CA, NV, WA and the treacherous mountains of NY, FL and PA. Exactly zero are assigned to wings within RMR. A couple of years ago I made the case to Andy Skiba that RMR needs turbo 206s, but the argument fell on deaf ears. This is what we get when people from sea-level flatland regions call all the shots, and when regions like RMR have zero political clout within CAP.
Easy on us flatlanders, Mustang ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It is true you folks have issues that would require turbo equipment
But seeing as this is my second time around in CAP
Common sense, in and above unit level, isn't so common.
I 'd would have to agree about the C182T .......burning off 1 hour + of fuel to land 'cuz of weight is pretty lame. We get what we get, tho
I didnt realize we had any Turbo Charged planes?
It appears we have 10 Turbo 182s and 2 Turbo 206s.
182s in CO, UT, MD, NV and 206s in WA and AK.
Mike
UT has 3 turbo 182s (two glass, one '79-ish). Used to have a turbo 182 RG, but it was sold after the engine hit TBO. CO still has a turbo RG.
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 27, 2009, 07:31:56 PM
I didnt realize we had any Turbo Charged planes?
Is the need for the Turbo's due to high altitude environments they operate in?
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on March 28, 2009, 04:03:41 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 27, 2009, 07:31:56 PM
I didnt realize we had any Turbo Charged planes?
Is the need for the Turbo's due to high altitude environments they operate in?
Yes.
Quote from: sardak on March 27, 2009, 08:26:48 PM
It appears we have 10 Turbo 182s and 2 Turbo 206s.
182s in CO, UT, MD, NV and 206s in WA and AK.
And why MD has a turbocharged aircraft is as big a mystery as why NY, FL and PA have 206s.
PA has a 206 because it "paid" for it with state appropriated funds. It needs the extra hauling capacity for the wing staff, none of whom weigh less than 200 lbs :) >:D
One of those 206s in NER winds up in NH often.. Pretty often.
We have small mountains. Not that we fly in them.
Hmmmm.....I guess the 13,000ft Sierras, requiring your to fly over at 16,000+ don't qualify.
Quote from: Mustang on March 27, 2009, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: aveighter on March 27, 2009, 04:26:40 PM
I have spent many hours (in fact learned to fly) in the eastern mountains where elevations reach a bit over 6000'. Mountain flying definitely has it's special challenges and techniques.
Given the nature of our operational flying I would think it very important that our BIG mountain brethren out west had the most appropriate tools for the job. I would think that includes turbine equipment.
Do those of you flying out west feel that 182/206 normal air breathers are adequate?
The 206--especially the turbocharged variant--is a superb option. CAP has 15 of these, . . . and the treacherous mountains of NY, FL and PA. Exactly zero are assigned to wings within RMR. A couple of years ago I made the case to Andy Skiba that RMR needs turbo 206s, but the argument fell on deaf ears. This is what we get when people from sea-level flatland regions call all the shots, and when regions like RMR have zero political clout within CAP.
When I get my first star things will be different. ;D Sorry, had to be said. CAP just doesn't learn. I really like Andy, but everyone looks out for #1 instead of the big picture. >:(
And with all the lead by example, integrity issues, people worrying about pencil whipping
Maybe those WingStaffers that are being hauled around in the C206 need to lead by example and lose the weight and maybe look like their AF brethern....... lean and mean
If CAP purports and reports about cadets being overweight.........time for those folks to look in the mirror and takes few laps around the airfield..
>:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
You think I'm kidding?? 50 percent of CAP ers could use a 90 day basic to get their weights down
Quote from: Mustang on March 28, 2009, 06:48:09 AM
Quote from: sardak on March 27, 2009, 08:26:48 PM
It appears we have 10 Turbo 182s and 2 Turbo 206s.
182s in CO, UT, MD, NV and 206s in WA and AK.
And why MD has a turbocharged aircraft is as big a mystery as why NY, FL and PA have 206s.
It's actually quite an old aircraft and is very expensive to fly. We inherited the aircraft from MER HQ several years ago, and from what I understand it came from DE before that. It had been the original MER SDIS platform, and when they started expanding SDIS to wing level assets, we got that instead of a new plane. We haven't really kept it around because we want a turbocharged aircraft, but because it offers something for pilots to use to get complex endorsements in and train for commercial ratings in.
You mean High Performance Endorsements? Complex has retractable gear. HP is an engine over 200HP.
No, I meant complex. It's a Cessna T182RG, the only retractable in the wing.
Holy cow. Cool. Its probably the only retrac in CAP?
Nope, it looks like there are retractables (from a quick glance) in CO, MD, ME, MN, NC, NER HQ, NY, SC, and TX.
Quote from: CAPSGT on March 31, 2009, 03:37:58 PM
No, I meant complex. It's a Cessna T182RG, the only retractable in the wing.
It's not 7389T is it?
The one in MDWG is 6429T
Finally found that photo directory on an unused USB hard disk at home. (the one that has that "i'm about to die on you" clicking sound to it.. no wonder it was turned off)
These were found about 5 years ago (judging by the file dates) on one of those "special operations" sites.
Here are some more...
I don't recall downloading all these photos.. I must have gone right-click crazy...
This is the last of them, I think...
Did we every fly T-6 Texans? Even back in, say, the 1950s?
EDIT: Anybody recognize any of the dudes in that photo?
The things you 'learn' on the internet. :D
Where the hell is Camp Peary, VA?
From Wiki:
Camp Peary is a military reservation in York County near Williamsburg, Virginia. Officially it is referred to as the Armed Forces Experimental Training Activity (AFETA) under the auspices of the Department of Defense, but it is widely believed to be the location of a covert CIA training facility known as "The Farm".
So I guess that was not you in the orange jumpsuit jumping out of the OD cessna?
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/67741/ (http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/67741/)
They have an airfield, so it could be legit ;)
Quote from: cnitas on April 01, 2009, 04:26:12 PM
From Wiki:
Camp Peary is a military reservation in York County near Williamsburg, Virginia. Officially it is referred to as the Armed Forces Experimental Training Activity (AFETA) under the auspices of the Department of Defense, but it is widely believed to be the location of a covert CIA training facility known as "The Farm". It has a sister facility, "The Point", located in Hertford, North Carolina.
You know, now that I think about it, this may be the place where my grandfather went to Seabee training during WWII.. He said it was in Virginia near DC. He was a hard-hat diver for the Seabees. Interesting...
Quote
So I guess that was not you in the orange jumpsuit jumping out of the OD cessna?
Looks like fore-and-aft gear. I've never jumped a bellywart reserve.
Camp Peary is one of those places they have issues if you fly over. One of my cadets (who is now at the USAFA) took me for a aerial tour of the area shortly after getting her pilot's certificate. She made sure to give that area plenty of space.
Quote from: CAPSGT on March 31, 2009, 04:02:21 PM
Nope, it looks like there are retractables (from a quick glance) in CO, MD, ME, MN, NC, NER HQ, NY, SC, and TX.
Hrmph. UT was forced to give up their TR182 when its engine hit TBO. Took NHQ almost 2 yrs to sell it.
That's because the airplane sales procedure is more secretive than some real-world USAF missions I've been involved with. Someone is hooking someone else up ... my case in point is N99237.