http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article91730552.html (http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article91730552.html)
(http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/ptf1fq/picture91730547/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/Cessna%20Turbo%20Stationair%20HD)
"Textron Aviation said the Civil Air Patrol has placed a 19 aircraft order for 17 Cessna Skylane 182T and two Turbo Stationair HD T206H single-piston engine airplanes.
The Wichita-based company announced the order at the Experimental Aircraft Association's AirVenture show in Oshkosh, Wis., which runs through Sunday.
Textron Aviation said the aircraft will be delivered from its Independence plant throughout the second half of this year.
Doug May, vice president of Textron Aviation piston aircraft, said in a news release Monday that the CAP is the company's largest single-piston engine aircraft customer.
The CAP, an auxiliary of the Air Force, has a fleet of 550 aircraft and performs search-and-rescue, disaster relief and homeland security missions."
(http://cessna.txtav.com/~/media/cessna/images/aircraft/piston/skylane/exterior-360/6.ashx)
I wonder which wings will be getting the new aircraft?
Always good news. With the purchase of 15-20 new aircraft every year, and the modernization/refurb of 10 or so more, the fleet should be in great shape for years to come.
Quote from: FW on July 25, 2016, 11:45:49 PM
Always good news. With the purchase of 15-20 new aircraft every year, and the modernization/refurb of 10 or so more, the fleet should be in great shape for years to come.
Will the focus be more toward 182s instead of 172s now? Would be nice to actually have a four seater.
an older C-172 (M thru P) with the 180Hp STC gives a true 4 seat aircraft. New Model C-172's and 182's even with the bigger engines offer little when they keep increasing the size of the fuel tanks. We used to joke in days past about Cessna and Piper Aircraft: "Fill the tanks subtract a seat". However New Model 182's are seriously handicapped in the full fuel payload remaining department where it's almost "fill the tanks, subtract 2 1/2 seats".
Last I checked, CAP is not buying any more C172s.
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on July 26, 2016, 01:02:04 PM
an older C-172 (M thru P) with the 180Hp STC gives a true 4 seat aircraft. New Model C-172's and 182's even with the bigger engines offer little when they keep increasing the size of the fuel tanks. We used to joke in days past about Cessna and Piper Aircraft: "Fill the tanks subtract a seat". However New Model 182's are seriously handicapped in the full fuel payload remaining department where it's almost "fill the tanks, subtract 2 1/2 seats".
Then stick a G1000 in them and lose another 100# of useful load. In the 182s, not so bad, you can still have a good three-person aircrew. In the 172s with the 54-gallon tanks? nope.
Quote from: FW on July 26, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Last I checked, CAP is not buying any more C172s.
When it comes to low and slow for aerial photography and SAR, its hard to beat the 172.
These new 182 'turbo' engines don't like too many hours of low and slow. They are traveling machines meant to climb high and go ....
Quote from: etodd on July 27, 2016, 03:03:21 AM
Quote from: FW on July 26, 2016, 03:30:14 PM
Last I checked, CAP is not buying any more C172s.
When it comes to low and slow for aerial photography and SAR, its hard to beat the 172.
These new 182 'turbo' engines don't like too many hours of low and slow. They are traveling machines meant to climb high and go ....
172's are pretty much useless from about Denver west. High and hot is not their forte.
I at least feel that I have more head room in the 182 compared to the 172 on photo flights.
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on July 26, 2016, 07:29:17 PM
Then stick a G1000 in them and lose another 100# of useful load. In the 182s, not so bad, you can still have a good three-person aircrew. In the 172s with the 54-gallon tanks? nope.
The G1000 is nice, but useful load suffers. Our experience is 3 persons crew + full fuel in a new C182T ain't gonna happen. Perhaps it would be possible with the old Standard FAA weight of 175 lbs per person... With CAP crew members averaging well over 200 pounds PLUS gear there is no way can we even think about full tanks, though it's not much of a handicap. Fuel capacity provides more flight hours + reserve than any uncathertized crew can fly ;).
Quote from: Live2Learn on July 27, 2016, 02:13:51 PM
Fuel capacity provides more flight hours + reserve than any uncathertized crew can fly ;).
Thus the airframe choice.
Members have been belly-aching about "full tanks" since CAP started moving to Glass 182s, yet the reality is most sorties are 1-2 hours, well within range of
even "big and tall" crews, and as CAP moves away from the Mark I eyeball to sensor packages, repeaters, and the like, the 4-man crew will become the stuff of legend,
while even 3-man crews will become less and less useful.
The bus driver and sensor operator (whatever that becomes) will be all that is necessary, until not even the driver isn't needed (2040?)
Even highbird sorties exceed the average bladder before the tanks are dry, and O-rides are a give-back on the weight.
Frankly, I don't know how CAP ever got four aircrew in a 172 or 182, unless they had shoulders that could be dislocated on demand.
Two adult males, in USAF-style weight, do not fit in the rear seat in a way that allows them to do any work.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2016, 03:03:57 PM
Two adult males, in USAF-style weight, do not fit in the rear seat in a way that allows them to do any work.
And in fact falls into the realm of "Bad Touch"
Quote from: PHall on July 27, 2016, 04:15:28 AM
172's are pretty much useless from about Denver west. High and hot is not their forte.
True. That may answer the question of where these new 182Ts are headed. Higher altitude locations. Shift the 172s to the sea level states.
Quote from: etodd on July 27, 2016, 11:58:27 PM
Quote from: PHall on July 27, 2016, 04:15:28 AM
172's are pretty much useless from about Denver west. High and hot is not their forte.
True. That may answer the question of where these new 182Ts are headed. Higher altitude locations. Shift the 172s to the sea level states.
Well, CAWG has no 172s left, so we have none to swap out. 8)
Quote from: etodd on July 27, 2016, 11:58:27 PM
Quote from: PHall on July 27, 2016, 04:15:28 AM
172's are pretty much useless from about Denver west. High and hot is not their forte.
True. That may answer the question of where these new 182Ts are headed. Higher altitude locations. Shift the 172s to the sea level states.
They don't do us as much good either. They're great, and it's awesome to have a shiny new airplane, but the crew capacity leaves the aircrews that I work with wanting/needing more.
At the same time, we need to remember that not every C-172 is flying "high-hot and fully loaded."
172s have a place in flight training, transition training, ES training, etc.
Not every pilot that comes to CAP is signed off and ready to fly a 182, let alone 182s with G1000, turbo 182s, etc. It makes sense to get them checked out in a 172 and learning the ropes (flight release, procedures, etc) before moving up to the 182.
Surely, even California has places where a 172 can be useful.
Quote from: NIN on July 28, 2016, 02:21:46 PM
At the same time, we need to remember that not every C-172 is flying "high-hot and fully loaded."
172s have a place in flight training, transition training, ES training, etc.
Not every pilot that comes to CAP is signed off and ready to fly a 182, let alone 182s with G1000, turbo 182s, etc. It makes sense to get them checked out in a 172 and learning the ropes (flight release, procedures, etc) before moving up to the 182.
Surely, even California has places where a 172 can be useful.
Not really. We haven't had a 172 for a few years now and we don't seem to be missing them either.
Last SAREX, we had a couple 182s and a 172 show up. The 172 was a real challenge because of the W&B. There aren't very many combinations of senior members that work out for 3 seats filled AND enough fuel for a mission in a 172... 182s are just more useful all around (although, here at near sea level, we don't need or even want the turbo version), especially as G1000 equipped models are showing up.
Pure speculation, but 19 planes ... I'm guessing 2 per region and the few leftovers to cycle out regions with an excessive stock of 172Ps.