Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2017, 11:19:38 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: What is the purpose of the Cessna 206's at CAP?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print
Author Topic: What is the purpose of the Cessna 206's at CAP?  (Read 4839 times)
jfkspotting
Member

Posts: 73
Unit: NER-NY-328

Instagram Acct:
« on: June 17, 2017, 03:08:59 PM »

Okay...

So the Cessna 172's are used primarily for O-flights, solo flights, and training/check rides

the Cessna 182's are used for actual missions, with scanners, photography, reconnaissance, and counterdrug

the GA-8's are used for Reconnaissance, airlift, mass A flight's and counter-drugs



What do the Cessna 206 do here at cap? My squadron has one, but it just sits there collecting dust. By comparison, the Cessna 172/182 fly ALOT more.

I have done an O-flight in the 206, registered N5461X, before.
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 759

« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2017, 04:07:59 PM »

Okay...

So the Cessna 172's are used primarily for O-flights, solo flights, and training/check rides

the Cessna 182's are used for actual missions, with scanners, photography, reconnaissance, and counterdrug



Huh?  We have been quite happy flying our 172 for actual missions, with scanners, photography, etc. etc.

Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,569
Unit: of issue

« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2017, 04:47:53 PM »

My squadron has one, but it just sits there collecting dust. By comparison, the Cessna 172/182 fly ALOT more.

Are you sure your  squadron commander wants you announcing to the (CAP) world that the C-206 that your unit has custody of is not meeting its flying hour program?

I know a squadron that would fly the wheel pants off that thing.  Bring it here. :)
Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,993
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2017, 05:16:16 PM »

206s have more power, and higher passenger capacity. In situations where a 182 with 3 crew would be overloaded, a 206 can frequently handle 4 crew.

We have several here in CAWG, a mountainous area, for that reason. 172s suck in that environment. We have all 182s and 206s here.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
jfkspotting
Member

Posts: 73
Unit: NER-NY-328

Instagram Acct:
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2017, 06:23:36 PM »

206s have more power, and higher passenger capacity. In situations where a 182 with 3 crew would be overloaded, a 206 can frequently handle 4 crew.

We have several here in CAWG, a mountainous area, for that reason. 172s suck in that environment. We have all 182s and 206s here.

What is the deciding factor behind which squadrons get 206's?
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,993
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2017, 07:58:49 PM »

206s have more power, and higher passenger capacity. In situations where a 182 with 3 crew would be overloaded, a 206 can frequently handle 4 crew.

We have several here in CAWG, a mountainous area, for that reason. 172s suck in that environment. We have all 182s and 206s here.

What is the deciding factor behind which squadrons get 206's?

Perceived need for the capabilities in a specific area. Those choices are made far above my level. I just fly in them.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 759

« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2017, 09:38:50 PM »


Perceived need for the capabilities in a specific area.

In more ways than one.  We were just offered a new 182, but after long talks decided to keep our 172 (2015 G1000).

We have several Cadets taking primary instruction. We have SMs taking IFR training and more. We have some TMPs who are building up hours to become MPs. Etc., etc. We  perform SAR, O'Rides, AP, etc., etc, in the 172 just fine. Yes its cramped in the back seat, but when we looked at the broad scope of OUR Squadron, the 172 is a perfect fit. Cheaper for those C12 flights.

Every Squadron is different.

Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,129

« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2017, 10:25:55 PM »

C206s carry much more "stuff" than their smaller counterparts.  For missions requiring extra payload, the 206 is nice to have, and when fit with the STOL mod, you can fly real slow, and land almost anywhere.  It's a very stable aircraft and much more comfortable to fly when compared to the G8.
Oh, and region commanders love them....... :)
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 414

« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2017, 09:48:50 PM »

C206s carry much more "stuff" than their smaller counterparts.  For missions requiring extra payload, the 206 is nice to have, and when fit with the STOL mod, you can fly real slow, and land almost anywhere.  It's a very stable aircraft and much more comfortable to fly when compared to the G8.
Oh, and region commanders love them....... :)

Actually, the C206 useful load is better suited for today's  "super sized" crew members.  The G1000 C182 models are really only 3 person aircraft (sometimes just 2 person) unless fuel is 50 gallons - or less.  50 gallons gives about 3 hours plus the regulation 1 hour reserve plus a 10-15 minute margin.

And they are roomier.  However, with flaps down (as might be expected in an emergency off airport landing) the crew and passengers in rear seats might have a hard time getting out unless they're very agile (and not 'super sized').  They'll have to climb over the front seats and out the front door of their choice.
Logged
kcebnaes
Member

Posts: 94
Unit: GLR-OH-064

« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2017, 10:03:51 PM »

My squadron has one, but it just sits there collecting dust. By comparison, the Cessna 172/182 fly ALOT more.

Are you sure your  squadron commander wants you announcing to the (CAP) world that the C-206 that your unit has custody of is not meeting its flying hour program?

I know a squadron that would fly the wheel pants off that thing.  Bring it here. :)

Shoot. I know of a certain Group in Ohio that has a bunch of pilots just chomping at the bits to get their hands on a plane of any sort. We'll take it off of your hands to make sure it stays dust free!
Logged
Maj Sean Beck
Ohio Wing
Group VI Commander
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2017, 11:14:04 PM »

Actually, the C206 useful load is better suited for today's  "super sized" crew members.  The G1000 C182 models are really only 3 person aircraft (sometimes just 2 person) unless fuel is 50 gallons - or less.  50 gallons gives about 3 hours plus the regulation 1 hour reserve plus a 10-15 minute margin.

Other then highbirds and transport, both of which are generally done with 1-2 man crews, most missions and other use of
CAP planes are considerably less then 3-hour sorties.

A triple-stack of O-rides doesn't generally have crew weight issues, so you can "fill-er up!"
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2017, 11:18:40 PM »

My squadron has one, but it just sits there collecting dust. By comparison, the Cessna 172/182 fly ALOT more.

Are you sure your  squadron commander wants you announcing to the (CAP) world that the C-206 that your unit has custody of is not meeting its flying hour program?

A fair point, but hopefully the Wing DO isn't tracking airframe utilization on CAPTalk.  If it's under utilized yet still assigned there,
there's generally a good reason, which a lot of times is political.

With the above said, JFK, just because >you< don't see it used, doesn't mean it's used.  Unless you're out there chalking the
tire like a meter maid, it's very likley most of the flight hours are happening during times when you're not around.

A lot of people would be pretty shocked to know just how much flying happens week mid-week during business hours.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,993
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2017, 01:19:10 AM »

C206s carry much more "stuff" than their smaller counterparts.  For missions requiring extra payload, the 206 is nice to have, and when fit with the STOL mod, you can fly real slow, and land almost anywhere.  It's a very stable aircraft and much more comfortable to fly when compared to the G8.
Oh, and region commanders love them....... :)

Actually, the C206 useful load is better suited for today's  "super sized" crew members.  The G1000 C182 models are really only 3 person aircraft (sometimes just 2 person) unless fuel is 50 gallons - or less.  50 gallons gives about 3 hours plus the regulation 1 hour reserve plus a 10-15 minute margin.

And they are roomier.  However, with flaps down (as might be expected in an emergency off airport landing) the crew and passengers in rear seats might have a hard time getting out unless they're very agile (and not 'super sized').  They'll have to climb over the front seats and out the front door of their choice.

Actually, the back half of the rear door can be opened with the flaps down. There's enough room to open the front half far enough to unlatch the back half, and fully open it. There are still some gymnastics involved getting out from the second row. We practice once a year.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,497

« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2017, 08:32:21 AM »

Quote

With the above said, JFK, just because >you< don't see it used, doesn't mean it's not used. [FTFY] Unless you're out there chalking the tire like a meter maid, it's very likley likely[FTFY] most of the flight hours are happening during times when you're not around.

Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 414

« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2017, 10:53:18 AM »


Other then highbirds and transport, both of which are generally done with 1-2 man crews, most missions and other use of
CAP planes are considerably less then 3-hour sorties.


FWIW, in western states 3+ hour sorties are not that unusual.  It takes a bit longer to get anyplace out west than it does in DE, NY, MA, or even some of the "larger" southern states.  :)  Then, after the mission purpose is accomplished, there's the RTB flight time.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2017, 11:00:24 AM »

Round trip or one-way?

Obviously this would be one of the reasons for the justification of a different aircraft type in certain areas - same
with places that have mountains, but bladder-breaker sorties aren't a good idea for anyone.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 414

« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2017, 11:26:53 AM »

Round trip or one-way?

Obviously this would be one of the reasons for the justification of a different aircraft type in certain areas - same
with places that have mountains, but bladder-breaker sorties aren't a good idea for anyone.

Both.  Tiny states have a great advantage when aircraft endurance is not an issue.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,824

« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2017, 11:50:22 AM »

The planes are where the planes are, many times because of political issues vs. mission necessity, but the argument could be made that if
an aircraft has to travel 300+ miles just to get to the AO, it's not the right one, and then time-over-target is going to be limited, so
your best best is to tank up either enroute or near the AO.

The interetubes tell me that Texas is less then 800 miles long at it's farthest point, so any point-to-point travel for most sorties
should be a lot less then that.  YMMV both figuratively and literally.

Regardless of what they are doing, 172's and 182s, even with Keebler elf aircrews aren't going to give you much more then 4 hours, assuming
the little fellers can stand it.


Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,993
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2017, 01:15:38 PM »

FWIW, the N-S and E-W border to border distances in Texas exceed 800 miles. California, from the Mexican border to the Oregon border, and Florida, from Key West to Florida-Alabama border also exceed 800 miles.

Flying point-to-point in Texas or Florida is pretty easy. In California, not so much. The high place can be difficult to get over sometimes, and increase both the distance traveled and the time in the air. Add that to target distance from available airports, and a 206 comes in really handy. The Fossett mission is a good example of that.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 414

« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2017, 01:38:57 PM »

It's a good discussion that highlights the mission and capability issues for CAP aircraft.  As SarDragon points out, direct routes may be convenient, but offer zip to zilch in terms of off airport landing sites, not to mention excess power for high DA ops over tall mountains.  At times a C172 (if souped up a bit) is quite adequate even mountainous areas with "elf" crews.  The repackaged C182T has a nifty set of avionics... that weigh a whole lot more than the 'old stuff'.  We all know that.  TAANSTHAFL is as true in flight ops and aircraft capabilities as it is in economics (which is why economics is well known as "the dismal science").  Unfortunately, a very high percentage of aircrew members I've flown are NOT "elf"-like in weight.  That, after all, is one of the reasons we have 'corporate' flight suits, and the white polo shirts for SM.  FWIW, I'm not the "elf"-like body weight of decades long past either, so I'm not throwing rocks at a glass house I don't inhabit.  :)   Uncomfortable as it is, the FAA standard 170 pound male (http://www.jetwhine.com/2009/07/as-obesity-grows-faa-sticks-to-170-pounds/) isn't useful for W&B or performance calculations in CAP aircraft.  Nor is it useful for assessing our aircraft capability needs.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Aviation & Flying Activities  |  Topic: What is the purpose of the Cessna 206's at CAP?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.445 seconds with 20 queries.