What Does Your Unit Fly?

[Checotah]

I'm new to this forum, but have been in CAP since 1980 (yup, I'm old).  Around here, most squadrons fly C182's, but I see many post references to C-172's.  Other than the Bird Dogs we used to have, the C182 just seems to me to be a good search platform.  The C172 seems to be underpowered (no offense intended).  So, for my first post here, just to satisfy my curiosity, what do the MP's in your units fly?

[lordmonar]

In Southern Nevada we got a steam gauge 182, a glass 182, a 206.  On the Green Flag side we fly a GA-8 and a 182Q SP.

[SarDragon]

C206 with a G500 package. SoCal.

The 172s are OK where it's flat, but don't work well where the dirt has big bumps in it, like the Rockies, Sierras, Appalachians, etc. The 182 or 206 are better choices for that. We have no 172s here.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

In CAWG, we fly 182Q, 182R, 182T, 182T NAV III, T182T NAV III, U206G, U206G G500, T206 NAV III.

Our unit flys a 182T NAV III

Agree with Dave for mountainous terrain and the 172.

[MacGruff]

PAWG - C172.

[aviatorguy32]

INWG C172's, C182 G1000 and round dial, GA8

[Panzerbjorn]

We have a little of everything around here.  Of course, my area has a rather large concentration of Wing and Region personnel that gives my squadron access to more aircraft than what would probably be usual.  Currently, we have a C182T NAVIII, a C172 with Aspen, Garmin 430 and Garmin 200 (frankenplane).  We're waiting on a 206, and a GA-8 comes through on a semi regular basis through here.  Plenty of opportunity to fly whatever you fancy!

[Huey Driver]

Usually have a Maule and Skyhawk here. Both are equipped and ready for SAR. Depending on the mission and conditions, one may be preferable over the other. Skyhawk avionics are much better and is IFR capable, plus a Becker DF. The Maule has much better visibility for searches, along with a more powerful engine and larger useful load.

[nomiddlemas]

I'm new to this forum, but have been in CAP since 1980 (yup, I'm old).  Around here, most squadrons fly C182's, but I see many post references to C-172's.  Other than the Bird Dogs we used to have, the C182 just seems to me to be a good search platform.  The C172 seems to be underpowered (no offense intended).  So, for my first post here, just to satisfy my curiosity, what do the MP's in your units fly?

The c172 in our sqdn is for training. The c-182 is for missions I believe. We still use both for oflights as well.

[SunDog]

Power loading is roughly equivalent - 182 has a bigger engine, but weighs more, too. The 172 can often lift more, if both airplanes have full tanks - the 182 has big fuel capacity, being designed as a traveling machine. Leave some fuel out and the 182 can still fly a very long time, and carry plenty.  Our Wing leaves the fuel at 32 per side, so it can carry a third person. For high country, the 182 has a diffrent wing and a much higher service ceiling. Being heavier, it handles turbulence and x-winds better, and is roomier.

Outside high-country use, the 172 is much more nimble, burns a lot less fuel, and costs much less to buy and maintain. 182s handle like trucks, real pigs for yanking and banking - which makes them more stable as IFR platforms. CAP tends to equip the 182s better (radios, Becker). 

If I'm paying, I fly the 172; just as well equipped for the most part, much lower fuel burn, and far better handling.  Cheaper! If CAP  was paying, I'd fly the 182; roomier, and more comfortable.

[nomiddlemas]

In Southern Nevada we got a steam gauge 182, a glass 182, a 206.  On the Green Flag side we fly a GA-8 and a 182Q SP.

Wow how many planes in your sqdn? I have never been on a GA-8.  cool plane by the looks of it. 

[PHall]

In Southern Nevada we got a steam gauge 182, a glass 182, a 206.  On the Green Flag side we fly a GA-8 and a 182Q SP.

Wow how many planes in your sqdn? I have never been on a GA-8.  cool plane by the looks of it.

There are a number of units in the greater Las Vegas area plus the Green Flag operation.

[SunDog]

. . .  Of course, my area has a rather large concentration of Wing and Region personnel that gives my squadron access to more aircraft than what would probably be usual. . .

Offered in evidence, Mi'Lord. . .

[IAV8]

Our primary plane is the C182 NavIII (glass).  This is great for SAR but when it comes to Orides I like to use the C172 with 180hp conversion.  This plane is simple and FUN to fly.  It doesn't overwhelm the cadets like the G1000 does.  In fact the Garmin 750 touch screen is very easy to use and understand.

Every pilot I know askes themselves the same question, What is the best plane?  The answer is always the same, you need more than just one plane to do everything you want to do.

[Eclipse]

The c172 in our sqdn is for training. The c-182 is for missions I believe.

??

Why would there be a distinction?  You're supposd to "train as you fight" - assuming the 172 hasn't been converted to glass,
why have your aircrews "train" with steam gauges and then "fight" (both literally and figuratively) with the glass.

The 172s, where available, are generally preferred for o-rides because with cadets there is much less issue with payload,
and there are a lot more "twice-a-year" 172 pilots then glass.  They are usually a little cheaper to fly as well, though
that's not generally much of a factor for funded flying, unless the wing is budgeting with a micrometer.

[PHall]

Funny, most of the cadets I've dealt with in the past 10 years or so can relate to the G1000 much easier then the "steam gauges".
Must be the video games.

[Flying Pig]

Its 2014.   Aircraft are built with Glass.  Thats what cadets want to see.  Cadets are impressed by technology.  Spinning dials don't mean anything to them.  Id say most of those kids have more G1000 time on a sim than most pilots do in the plane. 

Whats the best plane for CAP?   If I had to pick on, I would make CAP a standardized fleet of 206's.  Its plane that can really do any mission CAP is asked to do. 

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Whats the best plane for CAP?   If I had to pick on, I would make CAP a standardized fleet of 206's.  Its plane that can really do any mission CAP is asked to do.

Agreed with the 206, if money was no object.  Make some of them Turbo and some normally aspirated.

[Marvin]

Agreed with the 206, if money was no object.  Make some of them Turbo and some normally aspirated.

I think the key phrase here is "if money is no object".  Unfortunately, it often is.  Wing needs birds to fly a certain number of hours each year to justify the annual costs.  Some of that happens via our missions.  The rest must be borne by our pilots or squadrons in un-reimbursed activities such as proficiency flights.  It's a basic economic fact that aircraft with lower operating costs/rental rates will, all things being equal, be flown more.  I'm sure there is a calculated point at which each of our birds can be realistically supported, but I would guess that those points for 182's is significantly lower than those of 206's.  Don't really know because our wing doesn't have 206's (yet).  Bottom line, I think, its that 182's would likely be flown more on the pilot's dime than 206's, thereby providing more to wing's support objectives.  Just supposition on my part.

[AirAux]

Late 1970's we had a brand new red Cessna 152 we used in Westpalm Beach Florida.  Used it almost daily for Sun Down patrols.  Very cheap and with the slat area, no problems.  Fun Airplane.  In the early to mid 80's in Georgia we used the T-41's from the Air Force and they were in bad shape mostly.  Use the 172 and 182 mostly now a days.

[Eclipse]

Agreed with the 206, if money was no object.  Make some of them Turbo and some normally aspirated.

I think the key phrase here is "if money is no object".  Unfortunately, it often is.  Wing needs birds to fly a certain number of hours each year to justify the annual costs.  Some of that happens via our missions.  The rest must be borne by our pilots or squadrons in un-reimbursed activities such as proficiency flights.  It's a basic economic fact that aircraft with lower operating costs/rental rates will, all things being equal, be flown more.  I'm sure there is a calculated point at which each of our birds can be realistically supported, but I would guess that those points for 182's is significantly lower than those of 206's.  Don't really know because our wing doesn't have 206's (yet).  Bottom line, I think, its that 182's would likely be flown more on the pilot's dime than 206's, thereby providing more to wing's support objectives.  Just supposition on my part.

You'd have to push pretty hard on the cost before CAP aircraft aren't >always< the better deal then the local rentals, rarely is cost specifically
indicated as the reason pilots don't fly CAP planes - generally it's nonsense about "too much hassle", which just means they
don't understand the process.

At least for mission pilots, once you've done your initials, if you're maintaining your CAP quals on your own dime you're doing it wrong.
Most wings leave money on the table every year, and a large number have quick-spin ("it's nice out lets fly in an hour") open monthly missions
that are fully funded.

[SunDog]

IRT the 206 - that's a real question of taste; it has "ponderous" handling, for one.  Most run-of-the-mill missions can be handled by the cheaper, slightly less ponderous 182, I think. I can't imagine too many people paying to fly a 206 - like the Airvan, it'd probably be mostly used on funded missions. Which is O.K., of course. Just that it's gonna suck up $$$ to operate. But if your wing is letting $$$ sit every month, why not?  More $$$ to acquire and maintain, too.

CAP 172's usually can't be beat on price; and they tend to be in better shape (usually) and better equipped than FBO dogs.  There are clubs where you CAN fly a 172 for about the same $$$ as a CAP 182, particularly military aero clubs.  My geo siutation was such that I'd rarely fly a CAP 182 on my own dime - really, almost never. For a lot less "hassle", I could fly a G430 equipped 172 for about the same price as a CAP 182 at my club.

Can't agree on "not understanding the process", not after 14 years spent flying CAP. I (and other MPs in my wing) understood the process very well, though the details probably vary from wing-to-wing, and how well connected your were with the GOBN.  For the inner circle, likely a quick phone call did the trick. . .

But I digress; it is certainly true that a lot of funded flying was passed up in my wing. For myself, and other former MPs I know, the problem was more the time suck; triple or quadruple the pre-and-post flight electron/paper chase for CAP vs non-CAP.  Some of it made sense; much of it was a waste of time.  I think the annoyance factor was as great an influence as the actual time wasted. Even a realtively quick step is a real irritant, if it's patently pointless. . .distracting, too, of course.

However, I do agree if you're willing to embrace the "overhead" and not let it bother you too much, there isn't much reason a CAP MP should ever pay to fly in CAP, for sure.

I think there is a progression with MPs - early on, you check the boxes, whack the electrons, whatever it takes to get the mission flown. After a couple of years, you start to get a feel for what is pointless (or serving a need other than the mission), and that stuff becomes a minor/moderate annoyance.  After a few more years, you may be a little busier, professionally or with family, and have a lot less tolerance for time-sucks.  If you're in an "outer circle" squadron, you look at WMIRS, you look at aircaft and mission distribution, and you realize the GOBN is real and very effective. . .some cynicism creeps in about then.

And if you have a few more $$$, maybe you start flying non-CAP a little more, and CAP a little less. After a bit longer, spending Friday night and all day Saturday to get in one sortie of questionable value, you start thinking about the other things you could be doing with that time. And then one year Form 91 time rolls around, and you just let it go by. . .

I was talking to a F-16 pilot recently, and expressed my envy at his ride - he took me aback when he said "The last time I had fun flying, I paid for it. . ."  I'd heard that saying before, but kinda applied that to airline and other "straight-and-level" types.  With CAP, for some of us, after a while the rewards aren't worth the time required.   

That may not be a bad thing, either - new blood is good; maybe some changes happen, based on the realization of why you lost some folks.