Mountain Flying Airplane

lordmonar · November 26, 2011, 05:39:15 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on November 22, 2011, 02:42:29 AM
OV-10 Bronco.

+1

FalconHatTrick · November 27, 2011, 04:47:12 AM

adding in my $0.02..

Theres the PC-6
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/#20

If you wanted to stick with the C206... the Turbine 206
http://www.soloy.com/Products/Fixed+Wing+Aircraft/Turbine+Cessna+206+Mark+1/default.aspx

Cessna 208 Caravan
http://www.cessna.com/caravan/caravan-675.html

Lastly is the Explorer 500T
http://www.exploreraircraft.com/500T.php

Hopefully that all that helps.. most of those are for multiple people or 2 people and good deal of cargo.. if you were looking for just 2 people, then theres always LAAR... just minus the A/A.. or if you wanted to keep the A/A, I wouldn't complain I'd call for a job....

Stearmann4 · November 27, 2011, 03:14:31 PM

Pig,

I don't think you can go wrong with the Quest Kodiak. Some military units are testing it right now for incorporation of the ISR role which is about exactly what you're doing. The assessment process has already gone through Caravans, Porters, etc and they came up with the Kodiak because of the low operating costs and new build quality in addition to short field capability.

When they were looking at upgrading modern designs, the costs involved were astronomical...even for the military. You can pretty much get a Kodiak off the shelf with good factory support for the same price as a one off tricked out Porter or Courier.

Mike-

Robborsari · November 27, 2011, 03:17:54 PM

I always wondered if the compair 7 would work. http://www.aerocompinc.com/

It looks like it has all the features but there is some assembly required.

Short Field · November 27, 2011, 06:53:43 PM

Sparky Imerson, author of the Mountain Flying bible, told me that this was the ultimate mountain flying airplane.
http://www.katmai-260se.com/

I owned one for several years and fully concurred with him.

blackrain · November 28, 2011, 04:56:42 AM

Even more reasons for a Kodiak. On another note the imagery system itself (BTC 195) just might be viable for the CAP if can be kept light enough. They even mention the ability to route the video through the G1000 MFD

http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html

Mark_Wheeler · November 28, 2011, 05:58:25 AM

Quote from: blackrain on November 28, 2011, 04:56:42 AM
On another note the imagery system itself (BTC 195) just might be viable for the CAP if can be kept light enough. They even mention the ability to route the video through the G1000 MFD

http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html

That system looks like it would be perfect for our airplanes... I wonder if there is some catch to it...

davidsinn · November 28, 2011, 06:02:52 AM

Quote from: Mark_Wheeler on November 28, 2011, 05:58:25 AM
Quote from: blackrain on November 28, 2011, 04:56:42 AM
On another note the imagery system itself (BTC 195) just might be viable for the CAP if can be kept light enough. They even mention the ability to route the video through the G1000 MFD

http://www.microuav.com/btc195.html

That system looks like it would be perfect for our airplanes... I wonder if there is some catch to it...

Replace Archer with that thing and then we're talking. Heck put it in one 182 per wing and then you could get some real aerial recon done.

Mark_Wheeler · November 28, 2011, 07:59:51 AM

No kidding... that, hooked up to a toughbook.. now w're talking! I wonder what the cost per unit it? I wonder if its an STC or an FAA Field Approval...

NIN · November 29, 2011, 02:24:34 AM

Rob, the Helio is definitely something to look into, but the Kodiak offers quite a bit besides the "2 to 20" config. It can haul stuff around, not to mention the ISR config with that sensor ball (CAP would never buy that: it costs way more than they're willing to ever spend for a system that is way more complex than most folks know how to make heads or tails of. "Geo-referenced imagery? Why would you *ever* want that?" Never mind that it would deliver easily 10x what we currently attempt to deliver to our "customers")

If it were my bucks, I'd snatch up a Kodiak in a heartbeat.

wingnut55 · November 29, 2011, 04:40:57 AM

you can always buy a Turbo GA-8

and we will call it . . . . The pig with lipstick

PHall · November 29, 2011, 05:28:18 AM

Quote from: wingnut55 on November 29, 2011, 04:40:57 AM
you can always buy a Turbo GA-8

and we will call it . . . . The pig with lipstick

Heck, just putting a three bladed prop on it would be an improvement...

blackrain · November 29, 2011, 04:25:20 PM

Quote from: NIN on November 29, 2011, 02:24:34 AM
Rob, the Helio is definitely something to look into, but the Kodiak offers quite a bit besides the "2 to 20" config. It can haul stuff around, not to mention the ISR config with that sensor ball (CAP would never buy that: it costs way more than they're willing to ever spend for a system that is way more complex than most folks know how to make heads or tails of. "Geo-referenced imagery? Why would you *ever* want that?" Never mind that it would deliver easily 10x what we currently attempt to deliver to our "customers")

If it were my bucks, I'd snatch up a Kodiak in a heartbeat.

I think we could learn the system OK. Granted the 160k price tag for the BTC 195 isn't cheap but it's still less than some. Time and competition should bring prices for this type of equipment down some in the future.....I hope. Of course quantifying "mission effectiveness" to the bean counters generally isn't easy.

arajca · November 29, 2011, 05:02:03 PM

We spent how much per ARCHER unit? for prototypes with no support and got what, 15 or so. Of which 4 or 5 are still operational after five years.

The BTC 195 appears to be COTS, proven technology with a support channel. I would think if CAP came out with "We want 60 of these units." the price could easily come down. Or piggy back on a federal order (if one is made). Also, the BTC doesn't require a dedicated airframe. The aircraft can be used for other missions (o-flights?) as well, if you're using the laptop configuration.

As for the bean counters, cost effectiveness is understood. And there are some who can quantify mission effectiveness, especially when compared to the ARCHER system.

Flying Pig · November 29, 2011, 05:40:19 PM

www.skyimd.com would suite CAP just fine. About $100K per plane. Ive demo'd their system in flight and it works exactly like they said it would.

blackrain · November 29, 2011, 07:15:06 PM

I'm for either as long as we get the capability

Has anyone in CAP drawn up requirements for a system that could be used in a future solicitation? Maybe an industry request for proposal would be the way to go.

bosshawk · November 29, 2011, 07:19:30 PM

REQUIREMENTS////// CAP has never needed no stinking requirements: didn't have any for ARCHER, why start now?

wingnut55 · November 30, 2011, 01:00:00 AM

Col Reed

You know the Archer looked good on paper, the plane is truely a pig

arajca · November 30, 2011, 01:23:56 AM

Quote from: bosshawk on November 29, 2011, 07:19:30 PM
REQUIREMENTS////// CAP has never needed no stinking requirements: didn't have any for ARCHER, why start now?

I think ARCHER is why we need to have validated requirements now.

davidsinn · November 30, 2011, 02:10:50 AM

Quote from: wingnut55 on November 30, 2011, 01:00:00 AM
Col Reed

You know the Archer looked good on paper, the plane is truely a pig

IDK, I've flown in it and other than the seats sucking more than a hoover it was a fairly enjoyable ride and the pilots love to show it off. We were able to pull off a photo tasking(MP,MO,MS) while flying a media flight that had two local reporters aboard. I'd like to see someone do that with a Cessna.