What is the purpose of the Cessna 206's at CAP?

[jfkspotting]

Okay...

So the Cessna 172's are used primarily for O-flights, solo flights, and training/check rides

the Cessna 182's are used for actual missions, with scanners, photography, reconnaissance, and counterdrug

the GA-8's are used for Reconnaissance, airlift, mass A flight's and counter-drugs



What do the Cessna 206 do here at cap? My squadron has one, but it just sits there collecting dust. By comparison, the Cessna 172/182 fly ALOT more.

I have done an O-flight in the 206, registered N5461X, before.

[etodd]

Okay...

So the Cessna 172's are used primarily for O-flights, solo flights, and training/check rides

the Cessna 182's are used for actual missions, with scanners, photography, reconnaissance, and counterdrug

Huh?  We have been quite happy flying our 172 for actual missions, with scanners, photography, etc. etc.

[NIN]

My squadron has one, but it just sits there collecting dust. By comparison, the Cessna 172/182 fly ALOT more.

Are you sure your  squadron commander wants you announcing to the (CAP) world that the C-206 that your unit has custody of is not meeting its flying hour program?

I know a squadron that would fly the wheel pants off that thing.  Bring it here.

[SarDragon]

206s have more power, and higher passenger capacity. In situations where a 182 with 3 crew would be overloaded, a 206 can frequently handle 4 crew.

We have several here in CAWG, a mountainous area, for that reason. 172s suck in that environment. We have all 182s and 206s here.

[jfkspotting]

206s have more power, and higher passenger capacity. In situations where a 182 with 3 crew would be overloaded, a 206 can frequently handle 4 crew.

We have several here in CAWG, a mountainous area, for that reason. 172s suck in that environment. We have all 182s and 206s here.

What is the deciding factor behind which squadrons get 206's?

[SarDragon]

206s have more power, and higher passenger capacity. In situations where a 182 with 3 crew would be overloaded, a 206 can frequently handle 4 crew.

We have several here in CAWG, a mountainous area, for that reason. 172s suck in that environment. We have all 182s and 206s here.

What is the deciding factor behind which squadrons get 206's?

Perceived need for the capabilities in a specific area. Those choices are made far above my level. I just fly in them.

[etodd]

Perceived need for the capabilities in a specific area.

In more ways than one.  We were just offered a new 182, but after long talks decided to keep our 172 (2015 G1000).

We have several Cadets taking primary instruction. We have SMs taking IFR training and more. We have some TMPs who are building up hours to become MPs. Etc., etc. We  perform SAR, O'Rides, AP, etc., etc, in the 172 just fine. Yes its cramped in the back seat, but when we looked at the broad scope of OUR Squadron, the 172 is a perfect fit. Cheaper for those C12 flights.

Every Squadron is different.

[FW]

C206s carry much more "stuff" than their smaller counterparts.  For missions requiring extra payload, the 206 is nice to have, and when fit with the STOL mod, you can fly real slow, and land almost anywhere.  It's a very stable aircraft and much more comfortable to fly when compared to the G8.
Oh, and region commanders love them.......

[Live2Learn]

C206s carry much more "stuff" than their smaller counterparts.  For missions requiring extra payload, the 206 is nice to have, and when fit with the STOL mod, you can fly real slow, and land almost anywhere.  It's a very stable aircraft and much more comfortable to fly when compared to the G8.
Oh, and region commanders love them.......

Actually, the C206 useful load is better suited for today's  "super sized" crew members.  The G1000 C182 models are really only 3 person aircraft (sometimes just 2 person) unless fuel is 50 gallons - or less.  50 gallons gives about 3 hours plus the regulation 1 hour reserve plus a 10-15 minute margin.

And they are roomier.  However, with flaps down (as might be expected in an emergency off airport landing) the crew and passengers in rear seats might have a hard time getting out unless they're very agile (and not 'super sized').  They'll have to climb over the front seats and out the front door of their choice.

[kcebnaes]

My squadron has one, but it just sits there collecting dust. By comparison, the Cessna 172/182 fly ALOT more.

Are you sure your  squadron commander wants you announcing to the (CAP) world that the C-206 that your unit has custody of is not meeting its flying hour program?

I know a squadron that would fly the wheel pants off that thing.  Bring it here.

Shoot. I know of a certain Group in Ohio that has a bunch of pilots just chomping at the bits to get their hands on a plane of any sort. We'll take it off of your hands to make sure it stays dust free!

[Eclipse]

Actually, the C206 useful load is better suited for today's  "super sized" crew members.  The G1000 C182 models are really only 3 person aircraft (sometimes just 2 person) unless fuel is 50 gallons - or less.  50 gallons gives about 3 hours plus the regulation 1 hour reserve plus a 10-15 minute margin.

Other then highbirds and transport, both of which are generally done with 1-2 man crews, most missions and other use of
CAP planes are considerably less then 3-hour sorties.

A triple-stack of O-rides doesn't generally have crew weight issues, so you can "fill-er up!"

[Eclipse]

My squadron has one, but it just sits there collecting dust. By comparison, the Cessna 172/182 fly ALOT more.

Are you sure your  squadron commander wants you announcing to the (CAP) world that the C-206 that your unit has custody of is not meeting its flying hour program?

A fair point, but hopefully the Wing DO isn't tracking airframe utilization on CAPTalk.  If it's under utilized yet still assigned there,
there's generally a good reason, which a lot of times is political.

With the above said, JFK, just because >you< don't see it used, doesn't mean it's used.  Unless you're out there chalking the
tire like a meter maid, it's very likley most of the flight hours are happening during times when you're not around.

A lot of people would be pretty shocked to know just how much flying happens week mid-week during business hours.

[SarDragon]

C206s carry much more "stuff" than their smaller counterparts.  For missions requiring extra payload, the 206 is nice to have, and when fit with the STOL mod, you can fly real slow, and land almost anywhere.  It's a very stable aircraft and much more comfortable to fly when compared to the G8.
Oh, and region commanders love them.......

Actually, the C206 useful load is better suited for today's  "super sized" crew members.  The G1000 C182 models are really only 3 person aircraft (sometimes just 2 person) unless fuel is 50 gallons - or less.  50 gallons gives about 3 hours plus the regulation 1 hour reserve plus a 10-15 minute margin.

And they are roomier.  However, with flaps down (as might be expected in an emergency off airport landing) the crew and passengers in rear seats might have a hard time getting out unless they're very agile (and not 'super sized').  They'll have to climb over the front seats and out the front door of their choice.

Actually, the back half of the rear door can be opened with the flaps down. There's enough room to open the front half far enough to unlatch the back half, and fully open it. There are still some gymnastics involved getting out from the second row. We practice once a year.

[Luis R. Ramos]

With the above said, JFK, just because >you< don't see it used, doesn't mean it's not used. [FTFY] Unless you're out there chalking the tire like a meter maid, it's very likley likely[FTFY] most of the flight hours are happening during times when you're not around.

[Live2Learn]

Other then highbirds and transport, both of which are generally done with 1-2 man crews, most missions and other use of
CAP planes are considerably less then 3-hour sorties.

FWIW, in western states 3+ hour sorties are not that unusual.  It takes a bit longer to get anyplace out west than it does in DE, NY, MA, or even some of the "larger" southern states.    Then, after the mission purpose is accomplished, there's the RTB flight time.

[Eclipse]

Round trip or one-way?

Obviously this would be one of the reasons for the justification of a different aircraft type in certain areas - same
with places that have mountains, but bladder-breaker sorties aren't a good idea for anyone.

[Live2Learn]

Round trip or one-way?

Obviously this would be one of the reasons for the justification of a different aircraft type in certain areas - same
with places that have mountains, but bladder-breaker sorties aren't a good idea for anyone.

Both.  Tiny states have a great advantage when aircraft endurance is not an issue.

[Eclipse]

The planes are where the planes are, many times because of political issues vs. mission necessity, but the argument could be made that if
an aircraft has to travel 300+ miles just to get to the AO, it's not the right one, and then time-over-target is going to be limited, so
your best best is to tank up either enroute or near the AO.

The interetubes tell me that Texas is less then 800 miles long at it's farthest point, so any point-to-point travel for most sorties
should be a lot less then that.  YMMV both figuratively and literally.

Regardless of what they are doing, 172's and 182s, even with Keebler elf aircrews aren't going to give you much more then 4 hours, assuming
the little fellers can stand it.

[SarDragon]

FWIW, the N-S and E-W border to border distances in Texas exceed 800 miles. California, from the Mexican border to the Oregon border, and Florida, from Key West to Florida-Alabama border also exceed 800 miles.

Flying point-to-point in Texas or Florida is pretty easy. In California, not so much. The high place can be difficult to get over sometimes, and increase both the distance traveled and the time in the air. Add that to target distance from available airports, and a 206 comes in really handy. The Fossett mission is a good example of that.

[Live2Learn]

It's a good discussion that highlights the mission and capability issues for CAP aircraft.  As SarDragon points out, direct routes may be convenient, but offer zip to zilch in terms of off airport landing sites, not to mention excess power for high DA ops over tall mountains.  At times a C172 (if souped up a bit) is quite adequate even mountainous areas with "elf" crews.  The repackaged C182T has a nifty set of avionics... that weigh a whole lot more than the 'old stuff'.  We all know that.  TAANSTHAFL is as true in flight ops and aircraft capabilities as it is in economics (which is why economics is well known as "the dismal science").  Unfortunately, a very high percentage of aircrew members I've flown are NOT "elf"-like in weight.  That, after all, is one of the reasons we have 'corporate' flight suits, and the white polo shirts for SM.  FWIW, I'm not the "elf"-like body weight of decades long past either, so I'm not throwing rocks at a glass house I don't inhabit.     Uncomfortable as it is, the FAA standard 170 pound male (http://www.jetwhine.com/2009/07/as-obesity-grows-faa-sticks-to-170-pounds/) isn't useful for W&B or performance calculations in CAP aircraft.  Nor is it useful for assessing our aircraft capability needs.

[sardak]

Here are stats for sorties of 3 hours or longer for primary missions, certainly not all CAP flying. These are for January to mid-June, 2017.

Mission    Air Sorties    Sorties >= 3.0 hrs    % Sorties >= 3.0 hrs     Longest sortie hrs HLS    435    135    31%    4.8  C182/G1000 SAR    404    80    20%    5.8  C182/G1000 DR    137    15    11%    4.8  C172/G1000 Total    976    230    24%

The long sorties by region
SWR  130 (92 of these are on one on-going mission, 27 are on another)
PCR  35
MER  23
NCR  14
NER  11
GLR    7
RMR   7
SER   3

Does not include one sortie of 8.9 hours (as recorded in WMIRS) by a 206. Probably equipped with the Total Force Buddy^TM Air-to-Air Refueling kit.

Mike

[Eclipse]

How the heck did they squeeze 5.8 out of a glass 182?  Assuming that's right, it had to either be
flown by tiny Elvis or they came in on fumes. Depending on speed, that wold seem to exceed the range
by 20-40%.



That 8.9 has to be a mistake, right? That's about 150% of the range of a 206 according to interwebs.

[Luis R. Ramos]

That 5+ hour sortie flew with only two people and an auxiliary gas tank in lieu of the third?

[Live2Learn]

That 5+ hour sortie flew with only two people and an auxiliary gas tank in lieu of the third?

and was equipped with Pee tube, microwave, refrigerator, and fax (to request signed authorization to greatly exceed the crew flight hour limitation as well as exceptions to relevant safety rules). 

[jayleswo]

How the heck did they squeeze 5.8 out of a glass 182?  Assuming that's right, it had to either be
flown by tiny Elvis or they came in on fumes. Depending on speed, that wold seem to exceed the range
by 20-40%.

You could totally do it, physiological issues aside, depending on the mission profile. If it was a transport sortie (perhaps to get to a mission base for a SAR or highbird or something). At altitude, lean it out and use low power settings. Performance charts for 55% power at 10,000 feet standard temperature you're burning 10 gph. With full tanks  (87g) and a skinny crew your endurance would be 8.7 hours - 1.0 hour reserve - (4.6 gals in the climb and 1.1 for taxi so call it 0.5 hours) ~ 7 hours. This is flight time. Most of the time in WMIRS reports would be Hobbs time so 5.8 Hobbs would be closer to 5.3 or so of Tach (equivalent to flying) time. Longest sortie I've flown in a (round dial) 182 is 5.0 and it gets uncomfortable... -- John

[PHall]

How the heck did they squeeze 5.8 out of a glass 182?  Assuming that's right, it had to either be
flown by tiny Elvis or they came in on fumes. Depending on speed, that wold seem to exceed the range
by 20-40%.

You could totally do it, physiological issues aside, depending on the mission profile. If it was a transport sortie (perhaps to get to a mission base for a SAR or highbird or something). At altitude, lean it out and use low power settings. Performance charts for 55% power at 10,000 feet standard temperature you're burning 10 gph. With full tanks  (87g) and a skinny crew your endurance would be 8.7 hours - 1.0 hour reserve - (4.6 gals in the climb and 1.1 for taxi so call it 0.5 hours) ~ 7 hours. This is flight time. Most of the time in WMIRS reports would be Hobbs time so 5.8 Hobbs would be closer to 5.3 or so of Tach (equivalent to flying) time. Longest sortie I've flown in a (round dial) 182 is 5.0 and it gets uncomfortable... -- John

Two words, Brief Relief. Google it.

[etodd]

Two words, Brief Relief. Google it.

I prefer the Travel Johns. Really helps on flights I do outside of CAP where I'm often flying 3-4 hours:

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/travel-john-pack-of-18.html

[PHall]

Two words, Brief Relief. Google it.

I prefer the Travel Johns. Really helps on flights I do outside of CAP where I'm often flying 3-4 hours:

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/travel-john-pack-of-18.html

Brief Reliefs are just about spill proof and they seal. We at AT&T use them a lot!

[etodd]

Two words, Brief Relief. Google it.

I prefer the Travel Johns. Really helps on flights I do outside of CAP where I'm often flying 3-4 hours:

http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/travel-john-pack-of-18.html

Brief Reliefs are just about spill proof and they seal. We at AT&T use them a lot!

Yep. Same with the travel johns I linked. Pee in one and you can turn it upside down and no spill.
Totally absorbs it all.

[Eclipse]

OK, this is productive.

In the last week we've identified >two< things to never, ever do.

Ever.

[etodd]

OK, this is productive.

In the last week we've identified >two< things to never, ever do.

Ever.

I guess I've missed it. What are the two things?

[Nick]

A fair point, but hopefully the Wing DO isn't tracking airframe utilization on CAPTalk.  If it's under utilized yet still assigned there,
there's generally a good reason, which a lot of times is political.

With the above said, JFK, just because >you< don't see it used, doesn't mean it's used.  Unless you're out there chalking the
tire like a meter maid, it's very likley most of the flight hours are happening during times when you're not around.

A lot of people would be pretty shocked to know just how much flying happens week mid-week during business hours.

Yeah.  The plane's had 125 hours this FY; I think it's reasonably utilized.

[Live2Learn]

Yeah.  The plane's had 125 hours this FY; I think it's reasonably utilized.

125 hours seems pretty low.  How many pilots are available to fly the aircraft?

[SarDragon]

125 hours is great if the plane spends 5 months in maintenance during the fiscal year.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Spaceman3750]

125 hours is great if the plane spends 5 months in maintenance during the fiscal year.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

This. Never underestimate the power of the mechanic to disrupt your dreams of 200 hours.

[Live2Learn]

might be time to surplus this particular aircraft.

[Eclipse]

might be time to surplus this particular aircraft.

Unfortunately these kinds of maintenance times are not all that uncommon.  Over the last couple of years
my wing has had at least a couple aircraft that wound up being MX hangar queens for most of the respective FY
because of either parts availability, the complexity of the repair, or a combination of the two coupled with
NHQ expense approvals or a mishap report.

[NIN]

might be time to surplus this particular aircraft.

Unfortunately these kinds of maintenance times are not all that uncommon.  Over the last couple of years
my wing has had at least a couple aircraft that wound up being MX hangar queens for most of the respective FY
because of either parts availability, the complexity of the repair, or a combination of the two coupled with
NHQ expense approvals or a mishap report.

That 206 ain't that old.  We'll put beaucoup hrs on it

[Briank]

Unfortunately these kinds of maintenance times are not all that uncommon.  Over the last couple of years
my wing has had at least a couple aircraft that wound up being MX hangar queens for most of the respective FY
because of either parts availability, the complexity of the repair, or a combination of the two coupled with
NHQ expense approvals or a mishap report.

In the short time my Group had an airplane it seemed like it was gone for maintenance more than it was available.  That's just how it goes sometimes.  Airplanes are very maintenance intensive. 2 is 1, etc, etc...

[amirhamzeh.cap]

A fair point, but hopefully the Wing DO isn't tracking airframe utilization on CAPTalk.  If it's under utilized yet still assigned there,
there's generally a good reason, which a lot of times is political.

With the above said, JFK, just because >you< don't see it used, doesn't mean it's used.  Unless you're out there chalking the
tire like a meter maid, it's very likley most of the flight hours are happening during times when you're not around.

A lot of people would be pretty shocked to know just how much flying happens week mid-week during business hours.

Yeah.  The plane's had 125 hours this FY; I think it's reasonably utilized.

Are we both talking about 51X? What squadron are you from?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mustang]

The turbo 206 is the most capable aircraft in the CAP inventory. I'd trade all our 182s for 206s in a hot minute.