Now THIS is the airplane we SHOULD be flying...

[SarDragon]

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.

[BillB]

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.

[Flying Pig]

Wow...that helidoc guy is a jerk!

[ZigZag911]

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.

[Senior]

Heliodoc and FP are great motivators
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?   . I am joking
of course.

[Flying Pig]

OK....a compromise then.

[NIN]

OK....a compromise then.

Supposedly, we're already flying those!! 

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.

[NIN]

NIN you are something.  Did you perform the proper PLF?   . 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..)

[heliodoc]

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!!!!

[PHall]

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.

[Nomex Maximus]

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

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...

[Al Sayre]

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.

[NIN]

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.

[A.Member]

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

[NIN]

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.

[A.Member]

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. 

[Nomex Maximus]

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.

[A.Member]

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?...   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.

...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.

[Nomex Maximus]

. . .
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.

[A.Member]

. . .
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.