Future CAP fleet

[Mustang]

Was perusing Cessna's website this afternoon whilst searching for the latest Skylane PIM PDF (which they seem to have removed) and noted a few things that raise concerns for CAP's future fleet needs.

With Cessna soon ceasing production of avgas-powered Skylanes and all future Jet-A powered Skylanes being turbocharged versions with a max useful load of just 1018 lbs (before all of CAP's modifications are added), I believe the Skylane's usefulness in CAP may be nearing an end. Problem is, regaining lost useful load/utility means stepping up to the Stationair, which--although a phenomenal aircraft that is well-suited (dare I say *ideally*) for our needs--comes with a fairly hefty pricetag increase over the Skylane. (For the record, all future Stationairs will be turbocharged as well, from what I gather on Cessna's site.)

What this means for CAP's future fleet size is certainly anyone's guess, though I suppose the bottom line is whatever Congress/the AF are willing to pay for. 

Thoughts?

[cap235629]

go to LSA's set up in tandem and equip them with good avionics, become a 2 man aircrew and drive on....

[BFreemanMA]

Depending on the age of some of our current a/c, I imagine we'd be good for (perhaps) a few decades. However, I'm no mechanic, but we might get a little tight on parts as I imagine an engine designed to run on avgas would be slightly different from another.

I don't think CAP will be thinking about this any time soon, but you raise a good point regarding the pricetag.

[Eclipse]

Was perusing Cessna's website this afternoon whilst searching for the latest Skylane PIM PDF (which they seem to have removed)

Is this what you need?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9817402/skylane_pim.pdf

[Mustang]

go to LSA's set up in tandem and equip them with good avionics, become a 2 man aircrew and drive on....

Just a hunch here, but you sound like a flat lander. LSAs are useless around these parts, where we have cumulo-granite rising to over 14,000 ft.

Also keep on mind the occasional requirement to carry airborne repeaters, transport equipment/personnel/search dog teams, etc. that an LSA just couldn't hack.

Depending on the age of some of our current a/c, I imagine we'd be good for (perhaps) a few decades.

I don't think CAP will be thinking about this any time soon, but you raise a good point regarding the pricetag.

It could be sooner than you think; my wing still has a few 30 year old R models and even a Q model that are getting long in the tooth.

[Mustang]

Is this what you need?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9817402/skylane_pim.pdf

Almost. I think there may be a more recent version, was trying to verify that. Thanks, though.

[cap235629]

This is what I had in mind

[LGM30GMCC]

Looks like a nice aircraft, but 556lb useful load? If you have two me-sized SM's then we would still have about 300lbs of useful load. Two more 'average' SMs and you may not get off the ground with full fuel.

Granted one could make arguments that maybe we should consider H/W requirements for pilots to have a greater useful load in our aircraft to begin with. (A complaint in at least some wings I've been in is that 'We can't carry a 3 person aircrew because we have to shave fuel' Funny how they blame the aircraft...not the operators...

But I digress. Realistically that kind of aircraft just isn't suited to CAP needs in the higher elevation states.

[Mustang]

PCR has a 60 hp per occupant requirement, you'd get a crew of slightly over 1.5 people with that one.

[SarDragon]

PCR has a 60 hp per occupant requirement, you'd get a crew of slightly over 1.5 people with that one.

I pretty sure that went away a few years ago. That policy isn't in any current PCR supplement.

[PHall]

Yeah, that little two seater might work in the flatter places like the Midwest and places like Florida.
But from Denver west, they're useless.

[Thrashed]

LSA's are worthless everywhere. No useful load, unless 10 gallons is enough. 

[bflynn]

It's an interesting question.  The issue of avgas going away eventually still isn't solved, so it would seem to me to be premature for Cessna to switch to a Jet-A powered engine, especially if Jet-A produces an inferior airplane.

I've heard talk about NCWG getting a Cessna 210, but I've been largely out of the loop for the past 2-3 months because of work and family issues.

[vento]

With the budget being the way it is nowadays, I foresee a lot of retrofit with G-500 to our existing fleet of round dials airplanes that are still in decent airframe shape. If I am not mistaken, there were quite a few retrofit exercises throughout the country with Aspen or Garmin. I've ridden in a C-206 retrofitted with G-500 in CAWG and it is actually really nice.

I just don't know what will happen to the old and high time C182Q that we still have in the fleet. The airframe are noticeably in worse shape than the newer airplanes, some doors don't even close fully anymore. Not sure how we can replace those...

[FW]

From what I've heard, the new C182s will cost over $750k each.  With the cost and reduced payload capabilities, HQ has decided to keep the current fleet running with an extensive refurb program.  I think one or two new C182s will be purchased; along with one or two C206s each year (depending on requirements), to keep our friends in Kansas happy. 

[NIN]

It's an interesting question.  The issue of avgas going away eventually still isn't solved, so it would seem to me to be premature for Cessna to switch to a Jet-A powered engine, especially if Jet-A produces an inferior airplane.

Well, AvGas going away is likely to loom higher and higher on everybody's radar as time goes on. 100LL is eventually doomed, its just a matter of what date goes on the tombstone.

That said, knowing the replacement cycle / longevity for airframes, it makes sense to get some Jet-A powered rides into the pipeline now.

Sadly, however, the reduction in gross weight probably doesn't hit Joe Aviator quite as hard as it hits us due to our specific mission requirements.

It might make sense over the longer term to consider the "how" of eyeball SAR/DR and consider things like high-resolution sensor packages and such.  Maybe the right answer in the future is a 2-place plane with two organic flight control actuators up front, and 4 folks sitting at a mission base watching/managing the data feed, instead of trying to jam 4 guys in a plane that has the useful payload for 2.5 after fuel.

If that looks like it *might* be the future for *some* of our missions, then it might make sense to transition part of our fleet to diesel/Jet-A powered birds on a replacement basis, re-allocate aircraft, throw some bones to the 206 fleet, or even, *gasp* consider PT-6 powered Jet-A burners.

From what I've heard, the new C182s will cost over $750k each.  With the cost and reduced payload capabilities, HQ has decided to keep the current fleet running with an extensive refurb program.  I think one or two new C182s will be purchased; along with one or two C206s each year (depending on requirements), to keep our friends in Kansas happy.

Tell our friends in Kansas to stop making the @#$% plane so @#$% heavy!

[Luis R. Ramos]

...or ask senior members to lay off the pizzas, donuts, and cheese fries?

Flyer

[Eclipse]

"AVGAS" is not going away, 100LL is being phased out.  There are a number of alternatives being tested, several which have already met or exceeded the
required specs.

The sky is not falling on GA.

[NIN]

"AVGAS" is not going away, 100LL is being phased out.  There are a number of alternatives being tested, several which have already met or exceeded the
required specs.

The sky is not falling on GA.

Good point. 100LL will likely go away at some point, but not AvGas in general.

[Critical AOA]

With Cessna soon ceasing production of avgas-powered Skylanes and all future Jet-A powered Skylanes being turbocharged versions

Unless something has changed, the JT-A is only replacing the turbo 182 not the normally aspirated version.