This is just a bit of frivolity, to give opinions on aircraft that would have been good for CAP's missions...and may have been used by us, but not known by me!
British Taylorcraft Auster AOP (Air Observation Post) artillery spotter, flown over the beaches of Normandy by Captain James Doohan of the Royal Canadian Artillery (and had his middle finger shot off):
(http://www.modelwholesaleuk.com/catalog/images/AZM7294.jpg)
Noorduyn UC-64 Norseman; Canadian designed but used in some quantity by the USAAF/USAF:
(http://cdn1.wn.com/pd/a8/6d/185fa25ce6e3ec5ec73f85afee56_grande.jpg)
German-designed, Swiss-built Dornier 27:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Do-27.JPG/800px-Do-27.JPG)
Polish PZL-104 Wilga:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/PZL104_Wilga_PICT0062.JPG/800px-PZL104_Wilga_PICT0062.JPG)
I was going to include the L-19 Bird Dog, but it turns out we actually did use it.
(http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m465/bush_p/bdcap_fin.jpg)
(http://cdn1.wn.com/pd/a8/6d/185fa25ce6e3ec5ec73f85afee56_grande.jpg)
Wow - basically a T-6 with a high wing. Weird.
As to the L-19, there's one in an air museum up my way, with some indication it may have been owned by CAP at some point, there's
definitely people in my wing who have flown in them for us, most as cadets.
(http://warbirdheritagefoundation.org/PA_L19_F_0008_WX.jpg)
http://warbirdheritagefoundation.org/ (http://warbirdheritagefoundation.org/)
I dont know how to post photos. Soooooo...
Cessna 337 Sky Master! If you disregard all of the mandatory AD's and that the maintenance would have bankrupted CAP...Other than that, great platform!
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 14, 2011, 02:59:52 AM
Cessna 337 Sky Master! If you disregard all of the mandatory AD's and that the maintenance would have bankrupted CAP...Other than that, great platform!
(http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7695/cessnaskymastero23.jpg)
We had a guy in CAWG who owned an O-2A and used it on missions. It absolutely kicked butt on mountain search.
And the Air Force absolutely screamed every time he submitted a 108 for it.
(BTW, this was the airplane used in the movie BAT 21.)
The local CAF in Madison has a 337 that was owned by MS Wing...
I always thought these were cool, but I think I heard from somewhere that they are slow:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Edgley-EA-7-Optica/1578609/L/&sid=d79c815b1ba3e45eb599e506c8bf9d2b (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Edgley-EA-7-Optica/1578609/L/&sid=d79c815b1ba3e45eb599e506c8bf9d2b)
This one looks interesting too, though it's a twin:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Opegieka)/Partenavia-P-68TC-Observer/1946164/L/&sid=edcbcd090fd8c7b7416e5cfc543871f5 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Opegieka)/Partenavia-P-68TC-Observer/1946164/L/&sid=edcbcd090fd8c7b7416e5cfc543871f5)
Of course if you want to throw caution, money, and good judgement to the winds:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/North-American-Rockwell/2021079/L/&sid=043791a02115ed28844bdbbcdfe36e88 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/North-American-Rockwell/2021079/L/&sid=043791a02115ed28844bdbbcdfe36e88)
The O-2 and the 337 would have been miserable flops in CAP. I have a friend who had a pressureized 337 and it had constant cooling problems, especially when not flown in the flight levels and flown fast. Fast is not what CAP needs: in fact, the slower the better. I have over 300 hours of search in the Sierras and I can guarantee you that the 182 and 206 are nearly perfect platforms. I have flown my Debonair on missions and it is a serious mistake: better for high bird.
The Bird Dog would have been OK for lower altitudes, but they take a week to get to 10,000 ft: flew them in the Army. I suspect that the 172 is good at lower altitudes: I have over 500 hours in them.
A turbo-Porter would be good, but too expensive to feed with Jet-A.
The Bronco is still my choice, but we need someone on here with more than a 30 minute flight to provide cogent commentary.
Quote from: NEBoom on December 14, 2011, 05:41:29 AM
I always thought these were cool, but I think I heard from somewhere that they are slow:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Edgley-EA-7-Optica/1578609/L/&sid=d79c815b1ba3e45eb599e506c8bf9d2b (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Edgley-EA-7-Optica/1578609/L/&sid=d79c815b1ba3e45eb599e506c8bf9d2b)
This one looks interesting too, though it's a twin:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Opegieka)/Partenavia-P-68TC-Observer/1946164/L/&sid=edcbcd090fd8c7b7416e5cfc543871f5 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Opegieka)/Partenavia-P-68TC-Observer/1946164/L/&sid=edcbcd090fd8c7b7416e5cfc543871f5)
Of course if you want to throw caution, money, and good judgement to the winds:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/North-American-Rockwell/2021079/L/&sid=043791a02115ed28844bdbbcdfe36e88 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/North-American-Rockwell/2021079/L/&sid=043791a02115ed28844bdbbcdfe36e88)
The EA7 Optica would have been great. However I don't think any are left as there were major problems with cracks in the wing spar they could never seem to come to grip with. A couple years ago I actually researched thinking about maybe buying one.
How about an aircraft built for observation and recon. Great visibility, fast enough to get there but then able to slow down and really search. Strong beyond belief. What aircraft? The Amazing Grumman OV-1 Mohawk of course.
http://www.ov-1mohawkassociation.org/ (http://www.ov-1mohawkassociation.org/)
Too bad CAP has the prohibition on experimental (CAPR60-1, 2-4).
Wouldn't a Experimental-Amateur Built be an excellent Aerospace Education project for a squadron? Then end up with a plane that can be used for O-Rides and ES? One project, three missions.
Too bad CAP couldn't partner up with Scaled Composites. You give Burt Rutan (now retired, unfortunately) a set of parameters (long loiter, great slow-flight handling in the grid, x payload capability, downward visibility for all seats, internal sensor packages, whatever) and *poof!* the guy designs and flies a plane...
OK, a fella can dream, right?
Squadron 35 in Los Angeles flew 12 North American T-6/SNJ-5 Texans, 1 Vultee BT-13 Valiant, 2 Beechcraft C-45 Expeditors and 1 Piper L-4 Super Cub. These aircraft logging over 12,000 hours of search mission time and accounted for 70% of the 'finds' made by CAP in the Southern California area. With the exception of the Corporate owned L-4, these aircraft were all privately owned and maintained. As a mark of unity the members pained their aircraft the same yellow and red colors used in World War II, with a few minor personal touches.
The Bronco has always been my dream plane. I would love to see one in CAP colors.
I say nothing beats an AC-130.... Now CAP could never afford to run one but that would be the bomb..... JMO
Quote from: GoneAway on December 14, 2011, 05:11:23 PM
I say nothing beats an AC-130.... Now CAP could never afford to run one but that would be the bomb..... JMO
We could do it. But so could USAF. We're a lot cheaper than their planes, which is why we get missions.
But yes, that would be pretty B-A.
Quote from: GoneAway on December 14, 2011, 05:11:23 PM
I say nothing beats an AC-130.... Now CAP could never afford to run one but that would be the bomb..... JMO
Yup, find them then shoot them for getting lost in the first place! >:D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/AC-130_firing_night.gif)
A C-23 we could expan our DR mission with this air frame...............Dreams
The 172 is the perfect aircraft for our mission and save for some mountain squadrons, that should be the only aircraft in our fleet (but with the SAR configuration).
That said, if we were dreaming a bit, aside from a helicopter, the Vulcanair P68 Observer 2 (http://www.vulcanair.com/userfiles/file/P68OBS%20GARMIN%2020-09-11.pdf) configured for SAR would be a worthy addition.
http://www.vulcanair.com/p68obsmission.swf (http://www.vulcanair.com/p68obsmission.swf)
(http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/1/5/1/0/20473_1299013015_tb.jpg)
(http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/4/6/0/65073_1148578064_tb.jpg)
(http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/6/2/4/18868_1147079426_tb.jpg)
Quote from: bosshawk on December 14, 2011, 07:12:39 AM
The O-2 and the 337 would have been miserable flops in CAP. I have a friend who had a pressureized 337 and it had constant cooling problems, especially when not flown in the flight levels and flown fast. Fast is not what CAP needs: in fact, the slower the better. I have over 300 hours of search in the Sierras and I can guarantee you that the 182 and 206 are nearly perfect platforms. I have flown my Debonair on missions and it is a serious mistake: better for high bird.
The Bird Dog would have been OK for lower altitudes, but they take a week to get to 10,000 ft: flew them in the Army. I suspect that the 172 is good at lower altitudes: I have over 500 hours in them.
A turbo-Porter would be good, but too expensive to feed with Jet-A.
Your knowledge and real world experience are really a bummer and take all the fun out of compiling wish lists! >:D
However, the P68 is a neat platform. The CA Dept of Fish and Game use them from sea level up to the mountains.
Chambliss had my favorite: the OV-1 Mohawk, which I flew in Korea. The downside to that is that the ejections seat carts are no longer made and the big, ugly beast uses 150 gallons of Jet A per hour and there are no replacement parts still in the pipeline. There are about 15 Mohawks still flying, but only in the experimental category: the Army retired them in 1996.
Pretty much the same story with the Bronco. CAL Fire has 12 of them, but spent about a yearly CAP budget to recondition them a number of years back.
Not to mention that a poorly recognized engine-out on takeoff would have you on your back before you could do anything.
IIRC, they used the T-53 out of a Huey on each side.
Quote from: bosshawk on December 14, 2011, 06:27:10 PM
Chambliss had my favorite: the OV-1 Mohawk, which I flew in Korea. The downside to that is that the ejections seat carts are no longer made and the big, ugly beast uses 150 gallons of Jet A per hour and there are no replacement parts still in the pipeline. There are about 15 Mohawks still flying, but only in the experimental category: the Army retired them in 1996.
Pretty much the same story with the Bronco. CAL Fire has 12 of them, but spent about a yearly CAP budget to recondition them a number of years back.
Actually......the OV-10s flown by CAL-Fire are owned by DynCorp, flown by DynCorp pilots and maintained by DynCorp mechanics. The only thing CAL-Fire owns is the paint scheme, the Jet A that goes into them and the Firefighter carried in the back seat. The engines have been changed out and updated and the ejection seats disabled. Crazy huh??
Read a intersting article on Patty Wagstaff flying the Bronco for CAL Fire now that I think about it
I think Boeing has looked at a more modern version of the Bronco for a new production COIN A/C. Beautiful Machine for sure. Of course anything with 2 engines costs too much in operational expenses and would take money away overall from our missions in the long run
C-12 (King Air) in the Guardrail configuration. Way better than Becker for DF. But I'll defer to Bosshawk for a definitve answer ;D
Seriously though I have to agree that the 182/206 maybe with Turbo is best for our missions. I think we fall short however not with the airframe but in having to rely too much on hand held cameras and the Mark 1 eyeball on those platforms. IMHO
Some of you guys know more about the CAL Fire Broncos than I: I only see them around when they are flying or gathering dust at airports. They may have put T-53s on them: there are plenty of those engines around. The Mohawk had T-53s, but not the version from the Huey. Ours were free turbines, while the Huey had a turboshaft version. We had an air clutch on the front of the engine that drove the prop: our propeller blades were moved by an electric motor(another story).
Rob: didn't know that Dynacorp owned the Broncos, but not too surprised. Those thirteen aircraft came from the Marines via the Bone Yard. One of their jockeys burned one into the ground, inverted, the first year they had them in service.
Cliff hit a tender spot in my heart: the Mohawk.
I thought of the OV-10 and O-2/337, but was trying to stay with a single-engine bird.
My pick would be the Dornier 27.
First of all, it's German, and they have a long history of robust, reliable aircraft.
Second of all, it's purpose-designed for the Mark I Eyeball to be effective.
Third, it is supposed to have unbelievable STOL attributes...probably a big reason why the Swiss AF picked it.
There are quite a few ex-Luftwaffe/Heeresflieger Do 27's on the civil register in Germany...some still in their German "splinter" camouflage.
(http://www.abload.de/img/d-ebac6q2.jpg)
Quote from: NIN on December 14, 2011, 07:00:06 PM
Not to mention that a poorly recognized engine-out on takeoff would have you on your back before you could do anything.
IIRC, they used the T-53 out of a Huey on each side.
Nope. T-76 from Garrett-AiResearch. A little newer, lighter, and more reliable. The same basic engine as the Aero Commander, and the Turbo S-2F3AT conversions for CalFire.
Dave: I didn't think that the CALfire OV-10s sounded like they had T-53s on them, but who knows. I have heard enough T-53s in my life to likely never forget them. Three Mohawks or 50 Hueys in formation leave a pretty indelible spot in your memory.
Quote from: SarDragon on December 15, 2011, 12:21:28 AM
Quote from: NIN on December 14, 2011, 07:00:06 PM
Not to mention that a poorly recognized engine-out on takeoff would have you on your back before you could do anything.
IIRC, they used the T-53 out of a Huey on each side.
Nope. T-76 from Garrett-AiResearch. A little newer, lighter, and more reliable. The same basic engine as the Aero Commander, and the Turbo S-2F3AT conversions for CalFire.
I meant the OV-1, but Paul is right: its not the same engine as the Huey. I misspoke.
http://www.britten-norman.com/brochures/defender.pdf (http://www.britten-norman.com/brochures/defender.pdf)
Quote from: Capination on December 16, 2011, 03:52:39 AM
http://www.britten-norman.com/brochures/defender.pdf (http://www.britten-norman.com/brochures/defender.pdf)
At $2 million+ each. :o
.....imma leave this right here....
http://www.tecnam.com/it-it/flotta/mma/mma.aspx (http://www.tecnam.com/it-it/flotta/mma/mma.aspx)
...& if the FLIR is a bit much, just mount one of these (like was done on the CTLE)
http://www.cloudcaptech.com/gimbal_tase200.shtm (http://www.cloudcaptech.com/gimbal_tase200.shtm)