Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 22, 2017, 07:17:38 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Marketplace  |  Topic: CAP Aircraft Modernization Program - Git 'em While They Are hot!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print
Author Topic: CAP Aircraft Modernization Program - Git 'em While They Are hot!  (Read 1972 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,692

« on: October 31, 2016, 09:38:20 PM »

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/logistics__mission_resources/aircraft_for_sale/

(minimum bid indicated, pics at the link above)
AKWG
1953 DEHAVILLAND DHC-2 “BEAVER”, N5347G - $136K (Incomplete Logs)

1955 DEHAVILLAND DHC-2 “BEAVER”, N5315G - $148K (Incomplete Logs)

1953 DEHAVILLAND DHC-2 “BEAVER”, N31522 - $175K (Incomplete Logs)

1952 DEHAVILLAND DHC-2 “BEAVER”, N8964 - $159K  (Incomplete Logs)

1952 DEHAVILLAND DHC-2 “BEAVER”, N5142G - $139K  (Incomplete Logs)

NMWG
1982 CESSNA U206G, N9375Z - $78K

UTWG
1984 CESSNA 182R, N9317E - $65K

AZWG
1981 CESSNA 182R, N6268N - $45K (Repaired - hit by golf cart)

HIWG
1982 CESSNA 182R, N73466 - $55K (Repaired - Hard landing / firewall replaced, left tank leak)

FLWG
1980 CESSNA 182Q, N4949N - $40k - (Airframe repaird - 1997 & 2001)

ALWG
1980 CESSNA 172N - $26K

"A 2015 report on Civil Air Patrol’s fleet submitted by the Secretary of the Air Force to congressional defense committees noted that a minimum baseline fleet size of 541 aircraft is suitable for carrying out CAP’s emergency and operational missions, proficiency training, and support for cadet programs. During the period of this congressionally directed study, CAP relaxed its aircraft disposal efforts, not knowing the final outcome of the report.

CAP’s fleet has currently grown to 608, and it will increase even more as new aircraft are procured. CAP is adding 12 additional new aircraft this year to bring the fleet total to 620.

In order to achieve an appropriate balance in aircraft sustainability and budget limits, CAP must reduce its fleet to a more fiscally responsible level. My senior staff and I have determined that CAP’s ideal fleet size is 562, based on operational tempo and what we can afford to maintain. This means we must sell or dispose of 58 aircraft in order to reach that fleet size. As we reduce our fleet, we will do our best to select older, more costly to maintain aircraft for sale."


« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 10:10:07 PM by Eclipse » 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.

PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,762

« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2016, 09:55:34 PM »

Those Beavers will go fast and they probably won't leave Alaska either.
Logged
Jaison009
Seasoned Member

Posts: 263
Unit: SW-AR-040

« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2016, 11:33:23 PM »

Sad day...If I am not mistaken I believe N5315G was our DHC-2 Beaver at PCR-AK-009 in Fairbanks. Spent most of my high schools years in it and our glider WIWAC.
Logged
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 598

« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2016, 12:05:55 AM »

Dropping 60 planes from the fleet sounds like a political nightmare. I can only imagine the maneuvering that is taking place right now.
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,933
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2016, 04:41:19 AM »

Well, one was easy. It got crashed in CA back in August. It was a 1979 182.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,788

« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2016, 09:11:43 AM »

Dropping 60 planes from the fleet sounds like a political nightmare. I can only imagine the maneuvering that is taking place right now.

Sounds more like somebody realized that you need to make cuts in order to balance the budget. Not a nightmare, just basic business sense.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,530
Unit: of issue

« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2016, 10:05:47 AM »

Nostalgia aside, its probably not a bad thing to get rid of 60+ year old airframes.
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.
AirAux
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 737

« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2016, 11:16:38 AM »

Why would any of our aircraft have incomplete logs????
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,788

« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2016, 11:26:17 AM »

Why would any of our aircraft have incomplete logs????

Somebody took them home, the dog ate them, lost in the eruption of Vesuvius....
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2016, 11:58:30 AM »

Nostalgia aside, its probably not a bad thing to get rid of 60+ year old airframes.

How is that materially different from the median age of the current GA fleet?  :(  Sadly, that's our operational reality.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,788

« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2016, 12:06:32 PM »

Nostalgia aside, its probably not a bad thing to get rid of 60+ year old airframes.

How is that materially different from the median age of the current GA fleet?  :(  Sadly, that's our operational reality.

Since the discussion is not about GA as a whole, this comment has no bearing on the discussion. Older planes/cars/busses/lawnmowers have a higher maintenance cost and are less safe. The CAP Corporation is being responsible with its limited fiscal resources in this case. We don't need as many planes as we have in the past, so eliminate the ones that cost the most....
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Fubar
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 598

« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2016, 03:34:04 PM »

Dropping 60 planes from the fleet sounds like a political nightmare. I can only imagine the maneuvering that is taking place right now.

Sounds more like somebody realized that you need to make cuts in order to balance the budget. Not a nightmare, just basic business sense.

Sure, it's basic business sense. The nightmare comes in having 50 units lose an airplane and all the political maneuvering that is occurring to try to have that airplane be taken from someone else.

Show 50 squadrons the budget and say we need to drop 50 planes and I bet they'd all agree as you said, basic business sense. Then tell them that we're taking their plane and they'll argue why their plane should be spared.

It's kinda like when a neighboring state was studying rail transit to the suburbs. Everyone loved the idea, as long as everyone else took the train to free the highways up during rush hour for "me".
Logged
EMT-83
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,791

« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2016, 04:30:57 PM »

There was probably more political maneuvers and heartburn on who gets the new planes.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,788

« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2016, 04:44:38 PM »

Dropping 60 planes from the fleet sounds like a political nightmare. I can only imagine the maneuvering that is taking place right now.

Sounds more like somebody realized that you need to make cuts in order to balance the budget. Not a nightmare, just basic business sense.

Sure, it's basic business sense. The nightmare comes in having 50 units lose an airplane and all the political maneuvering that is occurring to try to have that airplane be taken from someone else.

Show 50 squadrons the budget and say we need to drop 50 planes and I bet they'd all agree as you said, basic business sense. Then tell them that we're taking their plane and they'll argue why their plane should be spared.

It's kinda like when a neighboring state was studying rail transit to the suburbs. Everyone loved the idea, as long as everyone else took the train to free the highways up during rush hour for "me".

Moving planes should be happening from time to time. And it's not "their" plane. If units have planes they should be aware of that and prepared for the eventuality that they might have to do some surface travel before they go fly.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,530
Unit: of issue

« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2016, 04:47:28 PM »

Nostalgia aside, its probably not a bad thing to get rid of 60+ year old airframes.

How is that materially different from the median age of the current GA fleet?  :(  Sadly, that's our operational reality.

Since the discussion is not about GA as a whole, this comment has no bearing on the discussion. Older planes/cars/busses/lawnmowers have a higher maintenance cost and are less safe. The CAP Corporation is being responsible with its limited fiscal resources in this case. We don't need as many planes as we have in the past, so eliminate the ones that cost the most....

Essentially, yes.

Heck, dropping 5 planes that are 60+ years old might raise the median CAP fleet age to something less than 40 years old.

I kid: apart from the Beavers, the next oldest plane on the list is a 1980 model.  Therefore, I'd assume that *most* if not all of the remaining fleet is newer than 36 years old, and therefore the median age will be around 18 years old.

Even though we (the "GA"-wide "we") do a pretty good job of keeping older aircraft flying long after their ground-bound counterparts (cars) would have gone to the graveyard, the cost of keeping a *really* old airplane in the air is pretty high.  Now remember that those five Beavers were also the ONLY Beavers in the fleet, and they share nearly no common parts with the rest of the fleet. Also, they're a radial rather than a horizontally opposed engines, tail draggers rather than tricycle geared, etc.  Now, from an aircraft checkout standpoint, too, they start to make less and less sense to keep around. (Yes, yes, I know Alaska Wing, you can't get out of elementary school without a tailwheel endorsements in Alaska.. tracking)

Supposing the average per-year cost to keep a 20-year old 182 flying was, say, $2500 a year (a completely made up number, mind you), and the average cost to keep a 60-year old DHC-2 flying was "only" double that ($5000 a year), it still makes considerable fiscal sense to put those Beavers out to pasture.  I somehow suspect it cost a lot more than twice what it costs to keep an airplane 1/3 its age in the air, however.  Those DHC-2 parts ain't makin' themselves anymore, and Viking wants to make that sweet, sweet moolah.

There's something to be said about the majority of your fleet still having a modicum of factory spares support available.



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.
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 397

« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2016, 10:00:52 PM »

Nostalgia aside, its probably not a bad thing to get rid of 60+ year old airframes.

How is that materially different from the median age of the current GA fleet?  :(  Sadly, that's our operational reality.

Since the discussion is not about GA as a whole, this comment has no bearing on the discussion. Older planes/cars/busses/lawnmowers have a higher maintenance cost and are less safe. The CAP Corporation is being responsible with its limited fiscal resources in this case. We don't need as many planes as we have in the past, so eliminate the ones that cost the most....

Your argument would make more sense if the cost of avionics maintenance alone wasn't approaching a substantial percentage of the older C182 and C172 upkeep.  Whatever, it does make sense to standardize equipment (the Air Force and Southwest Airlines have pioneered that concept!).  Some aircraft, perhaps the Beaver - dunno, that's for someone else to debate   :clap:  - has unique mission capabilities not available with the tiny useful load and somewhat fragile C182T replacements.  One could argue the B52 (for whom my brother did flight physicals on the grandsons of the first pilots of the craft) and the Warthog have outlived their time...  Yet I've heard it  suggested that the B52 might rival the Spanish galleons and have a useful life of a century or longer.  :)   Whatever.  Not my decision, so I'm just wondering why not spend much less than $400,000 on a new airplane when half that would pay for refurbishing an old airframe to 'better than new' condition?  Must be the CAP budgeteers are anticipating some efforts to rein in deficit spending at CAP's expense.
Logged
Damron
Suspended

Posts: 219
Unit: xxx

« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2016, 07:33:54 PM »

Interesting reading, 2015 financial report.

https://www.capnhq.gov/CAP_Financial_Report_2015.pdf
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 689

« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2016, 09:08:38 PM »

Quote
As we reduce our fleet, we will do our best to select older, more costly to maintain aircraft for sale.

True, but thats not exactly a good selling point when you want to sell a plane. Might want to delete that line. Ha!
Logged
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,530
Unit: of issue

« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2016, 09:47:11 PM »

"You're not getting it cuz its damaged. You're getting it cuz its an older plane and we are trying to be good stewards of our taxpayer-funded resources."

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

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.
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,122

« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2016, 11:05:52 PM »

Nostalgia aside, its probably not a bad thing to get rid of 60+ year old airframes.

How is that materially different from the median age of the current GA fleet?  :(  Sadly, that's our operational reality.

Since the discussion is not about GA as a whole, this comment has no bearing on the discussion. Older planes/cars/busses/lawnmowers have a higher maintenance cost and are less safe. The CAP Corporation is being responsible with its limited fiscal resources in this case. We don't need as many planes as we have in the past, so eliminate the ones that cost the most....

Your argument would make more sense if the cost of avionics maintenance alone wasn't approaching a substantial percentage of the older C182 and C172 upkeep.  Whatever, it does make sense to standardize equipment (the Air Force and Southwest Airlines have pioneered that concept!).  Some aircraft, perhaps the Beaver - dunno, that's for someone else to debate   :clap:  - has unique mission capabilities not available with the tiny useful load and somewhat fragile C182T replacements.  One could argue the B52 (for whom my brother did flight physicals on the grandsons of the first pilots of the craft) and the Warthog have outlived their time...  Yet I've heard it  suggested that the B52 might rival the Spanish galleons and have a useful life of a century or longer.  :)   Whatever.  Not my decision, so I'm just wondering why not spend much less than $400,000 on a new airplane when half that would pay for refurbishing an old airframe to 'better than new' condition?  Must be the CAP budgeteers are anticipating some efforts to rein in deficit spending at CAP's expense.

To understand why we spend $10-12 million per year for new aircraft, we need to understand why we get the cash in the first place... :angel:
Yes, it cost's much less to "Zero Time" an older aircraft, and because of the consolidated aircraft maintenance program, we  "renew"  around 10 aircraft a year (funds also come from the sale of older aircraft).  When the average fuselage's useful life is about 30,000 hours, I'm not really concerned about how old the fleet is.  I'm concerned about how we fly them, and how well they are maintained.
Logged
BuckeyeDEJ
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,059
Unit: GLR-001

« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2016, 11:05:53 PM »

4949N... seems that's in my logbook somewhere... huh! Flew it on my birthday four years ago. Go figure.
Logged


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group and wing PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member, at region level now
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now in marketing.
Pages: 1 2 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Marketplace  |  Topic: CAP Aircraft Modernization Program - Git 'em While They Are hot!
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.489 seconds with 20 queries.