Main Menu

Civil Air Patrol Helicopter

Started by Lloyd Bumanglag Capt,CAP, October 09, 2008, 05:37:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SarDragon

Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?

They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.

I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.

There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.

Whaddya think?

I think it's full of hot air.  ;)

Oh, wait, you're talking about helium filled stuff.

From my conversations with old blimp maintainers when I was at Lakehurst in the 70s, they were almost as big a maintenance hog as helos. With modern technology in some areas, that might be alleviated, though.

Yes, bad in windy areas. Hovering isn't easy, either. Back to doing orbits to control altitude.

Hangars - been in one of them lately? They were in bad shape when they were in constant use back in the 70s. I can imagine what they're like now, after years of disuse.

It is an interesting thought, though.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Flying Pig

There are so many variants of the Huey as far as conversions now.  DynCorp has the Global Eagle converstion, Bell now makes the Huey II, there are variants being modified that take 205 frames and put 212 blades on them,  tractor tail rotors, tail boom strakes, fast-fins, the list goes on.

We are looking at the Global Eagle or the Bell Huey II.

JohnKachenmeister

A while back there was talk about using a single-engine pusher plane called the "Optica" for SAR.  I didn't think it was a good platform, the payload with full fuel was low.  Considering the weights of some of us, plus the gear we pack, I didn't think it would work.

But some other platforms were being considered, as I recall.

Not helicopters, however.  I'd rather have a sister in a brothel than a brother in a rotary-wing aircraft!
Another former CAP officer

Flying Pig

^  How about you let your sister fly in the helicopter?

flyerthom

Quote from: G+10 on October 10, 2008, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?

They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.

I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.

There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.

Whaddya think?

As long as we could advertise off the side of it I wouldn't have any problems with the idea...

All we need is the scrolling sign
TC

flyerthom

QuoteRe: Civil Air Patrol Helicopter
« Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 10:29:05 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A while back there was talk about using a single-engine pusher plane called the "Optica" for SAR.  I didn't think it was a good platform, the payload with full fuel was low.  Considering the weights of some of us, plus the gear we pack, I didn't think it would work.

But some other platforms were being considered, as I recall.

Not helicopters, however.  I'd rather have a sister in a brothel than a brother in a rotary-wing aircraft!


Quote from: Flying Pig on October 11, 2008, 09:31:41 PM
^  How about you let your sister fly in the helicopter?


Don't tell Mom I'm a flight nurse - she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel  >:D
TC

NatCap

I have always thought that an airship or blimp would be a perfect SAR platform.  Just this week I saw some of the new designs and models through my work.  There are a lot of new designs out there like Lockhead's solar powered high altitude airship.  Blackwater also has a very interesting unmanned/manned blimp that goes on the market next year.  These are being marketed to the military and government agencies for communications and homeland security purposes.  CAP could be a part of this new revolution!

PAUL

Quote from: G+10 on October 10, 2008, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?

They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.

I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.

There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.

Whaddya think?

As long as we could advertise off the side of it I wouldn't have any problems with the idea...

FW

Even though helicopters and airships may be a better SAR platform than Cessnas, there is no beating the cost/benefit for fixed wing aircraft.  However, it would be more fun taking in some helium and talking like Alvin and the other Chipmunks ;D

DNall

Airships are not good for SaR. They're slow to move into the AO then slow progressing over the area. What they're good at is staying up in a small area for a long time. That's perfect when you don't have satellite coverage or  for comm support. If you wanted realtime satellite-like optics over an area (like an Olympic city) for a long time, then yeah it'd be great. If you're looking for a lost plane, not so much.

Helicopters are absolutely better for SaR than fixed wing. The best search you can do is 30kts under 500ft with a lot of time below that altitude checking things out, even landing as necessary. That's about a hundred times more effective than what we do in cessnas, of course the cost to reach the same POD would be enormously higher.

There are times when you need a helicopter & fixed wing just isn't going to get it done no matter how much you overfly an area. We coordinate with the state when we need that.

PHall

Quote from: DNall on October 12, 2008, 05:58:04 AM
Airships are not good for SaR. They're slow to move into the AO then slow progressing over the area. What they're good at is staying up in a small area for a long time. That's perfect when you don't have satellite coverage or  for comm support. If you wanted realtime satellite-like optics over an area (like an Olympic city) for a long time, then yeah it'd be great. If you're looking for a lost plane, not so much.

Helicopters are absolutely better for SaR than fixed wing. The best search you can do is 30kts under 500ft with a lot of time below that altitude checking things out, even landing as necessary. That's about a hundred times more effective than what we do in cessnas, of course the cost to reach the same POD would be enormously higher.

There are times when you need a helicopter & fixed wing just isn't going to get it done no matter how much you overfly an area. We coordinate with the state when we need that.

Fixed wing vs rotary wing is an apples and oranges argument.

Fixed wing is the only way to go for large area searches, i.e. route search and grids.
Rotary wing are good for specific targets, i.e. ridgelines.

Its all a matter of using the right tool for the job at hand.

LittleIronPilot

Quote from: Ned on October 10, 2008, 05:40:18 PM
So in all seriousness, would an airship be a worthwhile CAP platform?

They would seem to offer advantages in low airspeed and virtually unlimited loiter time for things like grid searches, border, and CN type missions.

I suspect they probably don't do well in windy places like the mountains, however.

There are a number of old Navy blimp and airship hangers still around in California.

Whaddya think?

Quite honestly...that is a great thought for future mission capabilities. With newer style "airships" coming online (I have read of several recently) I can see them being GREAT "high bird" platforms but their slowness might not make them such good SAR platforms.

DNall

Quote from: PHall on October 12, 2008, 06:11:06 AM
Fixed wing vs rotary wing is an apples and oranges argument.

Fixed wing is the only way to go for large area searches, i.e. route search and grids.
Rotary wing are good for specific targets, i.e. ridgelines.

Its all a matter of using the right tool for the job at hand.

Maybe green apples to red apples.

You can certainly cover more territory with fewer aircraft in a fixed amount of time with fixed wing, but the quality of coverage is not nearly as good, so you may need to fly a grid several times to get the POD you can expect from one helo flight.

The best air search you could run would be to flood an area with helos on quarter grids, but that's an enormously expensive & logistically insane op. There's also probably not enough SaR search competent aircrews in any area from any agency to do it right.

So yeah, the most practical search is going to be light fixed wing (CAP) with helos as you say for specific high value & low accessible areas. The skill level & airframe you'd need on that type of rotary flying is beyond almost all civilian agencies (meaning I don't know of one). For the tougher end of that spectrum, I wouldn't even trust Army pilots.

RiverAux

QuoteYou can certainly cover more territory with fewer aircraft in a fixed amount of time with fixed wing, but the quality of coverage is not nearly as good, so you may need to fly a grid several times to get the POD you can expect from one helo flight.
You can fly a grid a whole bunch of times with fixed wing before your cost exceeds that of flying it with a helicopter once.  That being said, there are obviously certain situations when a helicopter is the right tool for the right job.  Missing airplane searches generally are not going to be that job due to the vast amounts of terrain that usually need to be searched. 

Flying Pig

Helicopters are always the right choice.  It just depends on whether or not your budget can support it.

DNall

Quote from: RiverAux on October 12, 2008, 09:42:21 PM
You can fly a grid a whole bunch of times with fixed wing before your cost exceeds that of flying it with a helicopter once.  That being said, there are obviously certain situations when a helicopter is the right tool for the right job.  Missing airplane searches generally are not going to be that job due to the vast amounts of terrain that usually need to be searched. 

Actually, that's not true....

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 10, 2008, 12:25:08 AM
Our MD500E's that we have at work cost us about $300 per hour to operate with maintenance, fuel...

You know what we're billing hourly for Cessnas? Now multiply that times two & see which number is bigger.

You want to factor in training, purchase cost, etc... go ahead & figure out how much the AF has invested in our air fleet, annual O&M/training, etc. It's a big number. That's why when we bill other than the federal govt for hours the rate is closer to $300/hr.

Paid aircrew are always going to cost more than volunteers, but there's an argument that better trained/experienced in the field makes them more efficient, which means fewer sorties. And helos are always going to be more expensive to operate than light fixed-wing. That said, the difference is not so insanely dramatic that they don't need to be used on fairly regular basis. It's just not something the CAP volunteer based system, or our financial/logistical operating parameters could support.

RiverAux

QuoteThat's why when we bill other than the federal govt for hours the rate is closer to $300/hr.
Maybe TX is padding the bills, but our wing charges the rate in the regs + actual gas cost which is roughly $90/hour the last time I looked. 

DNall

#36
You hadn't looked in a long time then. That's also the rate charged to AF per mission hour. That rate is based on AF subsidizing everything else about the overall fleet operation. The rate charged to non-federal customers is very different. It passes on those additional operating costs. Which is as it should be. AF shouldn't be expected to eat part of the cost for flying they don't have control of, and may actually disapprove of.

Fact remains I have to overfly a grid 3-4-5 times to get POD to take it off my map. I can accomplish the same thing with usually one helo sortie.

I'm really not saying light helos are cheaper. They aren't in the big picture, but in terms of hourly operating cost they are pretty reasonable. CAP is a good & versatile option, but it isn't such an amazingly cheap deal that helos shouldn't be used when available. Certainly when you have high value targets & you can get a helo from the state, by all means send them out there. Hell, put a couple CAP members in the helo & send them out. We did that, as I guess yall remember, and it worked out great.

Flying Pig

Well, my unit spent the last 16 hours searching an area in the Sierras for a lost hunter.  And I can guarantee an airplane would have never been able to do what we did.  tree top level, at about 50 knots.  Like Ive said before, Ive had CAP IC's tell me helicopters have no place in SAR.

PHall

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 14, 2008, 01:03:01 AM
Well, my unit spent the last 16 hours searching an area in the Sierras for a lost hunter.  And I can guarantee an airplane would have never been able to do what we did.  tree top level, at about 50 knots.  Like Ive said before, Ive had CAP IC's tell me helicopters have no place in SAR.

Probably because we've had some bad experiences with helicopters in CAWG. Most specifically San Bernardino County SO.

RiverAux

#39
QuoteYou hadn't looked in a long time then. That's also the rate charged to AF per mission hour. That rate is based on AF subsidizing everything else about the overall fleet operation. The rate charged to non-federal customers is very different. It passes on those additional operating costs. Which is as it should be. AF shouldn't be expected to eat part of the cost for flying they don't have control of, and may actually disapprove of.
Oh, I don't know about that.  I've personally arranged for at least 3 flights for other agencies in 2008 and the reimbursement rate was as I stated -- approximately $90-100/hour depending on the cost of gas that day and the model of plane.   And I am aware of several other flights for other agencies that were done in the same manner. 

You might want to review 173-3 Attachment 1.  Perhaps you meant to say charges for ARCHER flights, which cost an additional $235/hour on top of the regular reimbursement rate for the aircraft if not being funded by our congressional appropriation. 

Of course, you are also allowed to come up with different rates per an MOU with the agency, so maybe TX Wing has better negotiators than we do.