Thanks Thanks:  276
Likes Likes:  569
Dislikes Dislikes:  16
Page 2 of 48 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 1183
  1. #26
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rough Field performance is a must. Though the Islands may have runways, Its easier to get something designed for rough field into a smooth runway in rough weather.

  2. #27
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like

    alive and well..

    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    hi there
    The PC-6 is only built to special order and you can guess how much that costs! The Defender/Islander is only built at a very low volume and mostly to special order. i dont know if the 212 is still in production.
    regards
    GttC
    Seems like the C-212 is still going strong. Latest version is the C-212-400.
    (http://www.eads-nv.com/xml/content/O.../50/434505.pdf)

    "Brazil orders 50 C-212 transports from EADS Casa, to replace Bandeirantes

    The Brazilian air force (FAB) has confirmed that it is to place an order for 50 EADS Casa C-212-400s transport and surveillance aircraft in a deal that includes the establishment of a local production site.

    The Spanish arm of EADS clinched the deal, worth an estimated $260 million, by slashing the price of the aircraft from $8 million per unit to $5.2 million..."

    (www.flightglobal.com, 23 Aug. 2006)

    I mentioned the C212 more as an alternative to the Defender, CN-235 and C-295, which had been proposed earlier in this thread, than as a direct Cessna replacement. Also because more AW139 helicopters had also been proposed. Seems to me the C-212 is much better value for money.

    However if a direct Cessna replacement is all that's required, then the PC-6 looks good, although as you say, it might be very expensive. Cheapest option of all would just be a few new Cessnas. Was there some mention elsewhere of an Air Corps policy favouring twin-engined aircraft? Or was that just helicopters? BTW, do the Air Corps only buy new aircraft these days? Could be some good second-hand deals out there.

  3. #28
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by carrington View Post
    The role of the Cessnas in relation to cash escorts is "to provide observation, signals support & to co-ordinate any response to an attack." Should similar air support not be available when troops are engaged in other operational activities, which mainly take place overseas? Which would be better for that purpose, fixed-wing or helicopter?
    Similiar air support is available overseas, supplied by other members of whatever multinational force Ireland is contributing to. Ireland does not operate overseas alone, nor is it ever likely to, so the need for the DF to supply it's own air cover is not that pressing.

    I'd say the proposed UAVs would be most likely to fill this role overseas.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  4. #29
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi carrington,
    The Don does buy second-hand, when it suits the purpose (that is, the bean-counters won't put out for a new one).Personally,I'd go for a -212, if they can get them for what the Brazilians paid....this thing about commonality of PT-6 engines in the Don is often a myth.The PT-6A-41 of the King Air is a Stone-Age relic of the 60s compared to the PT-6 of the PC-9s.They could probably only share a few gaskets and oil seals and a few minor parts. An awful lot of the Don fleet is characterised by a complete lack of interchangability at even the most basic level (seats can't be swopped, radios can't be swopped,etc). For a small fleet, it has far too many individual types. This was addressed in previous studies but nothing, apart from better commonality among helicopters, has been done.
    regards
    GttC

  5. Likes DeV liked this post
  6. #30
    Intelligence Officer The Blue Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finner Air Station
    Posts
    516
    Post Thanks / Like
    News i heard on this subject the other day is that the PC-6 is ruled out of replacing the current cessnas 172s because of its bad safety record.

    The IAC is going to procure two twin engine aircraft similiar in appearance to Cessna Caravan, I was told so I dont know what this will be anyone have any ideas?

    BMax.
    Last edited by The Blue Max; 25th April 2007 at 23:24.
    British officer: You're seven minutes late, Mr. Collins.
    Michael Collins: You've kept us waiting 700 years. You can have your seven minutes.

    [As the British flag comes down]

    Michael Collins: So that's what all the bother was about.

  7. #31
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Islander/Defender?

  8. #32
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like

    change of mind

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blue Max View Post
    News i heard on this subject the other day is that the PC-6 is ruled out of replacing the current cessnas 172s because of its bad safety record.

    The IAC is going to procure two twin engine aircraft similiar in appearance to Cessna Caravan, I was told so I dont know what this will be anyone have any ideas?

    BMax.
    Seems like there's been a big change of mind: only last August, Ralph James was quoted in FlightGlobal as saying that "The service's next procurement priority will be to acquire a replacement for its Cessna 172 special mission aircraft to conduct tasks including target-towing and parachute training.... Aircraft such as the Cessna Caravan and Pilatus PC-6 could potentially be suitable for the requirement..."

  9. #33
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like

    probably

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    Islander/Defender?
    Probably, since they're used to the GASU aircraft and they have the example of the British Army Defenders. Still think the CASA C-212 is a lot more aircraft for a similar amount of money.

  10. #34
    Intelligence Officer The Blue Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finner Air Station
    Posts
    516
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ya thats what i would guess, I had more to discuss with him so wasnt really talkin shop, but i might be up there soon again and will see if there any progress with cessna replacments. I personnally was surpirsed with the information of the PC-6 having a terrible safety record did anyone else no this?
    British officer: You're seven minutes late, Mr. Collins.
    Michael Collins: You've kept us waiting 700 years. You can have your seven minutes.

    [As the British flag comes down]

    Michael Collins: So that's what all the bother was about.

  11. #35
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like

    twin-engined STOL alternatives

    The Polish PZL Skytruck is similar to the CASA C-212 but even cheaper, around €4 million. The Twin Otter is back in production, priced less than €3 million. AFAIK, the Defender comes in at around €6 million.

  12. #36
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like

    Reims Caravan II?

    This is a Reims-Cessna F406 Caravan II, a twin turboprop aircraft. It's similar in size to the Cessna Caravan but has a low wing and would not be a STOL aircraft. However it is sold to Government agencies for surveillance-type work, and it's also used for target-towing.



    Don't forget the Air Corps Cessnas are Reims machines: maybe they got a good trade-in deal?

  13. #37
    "Nice ass, Samson..." mutter nutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Banner
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by carrington View Post
    This is a Reims-Cessna F406 Caravan II, a twin turboprop aircraft. It's similar in size to the Cessna Caravan but has a low wing and would not be a STOL aircraft. However it is sold to Government agencies for surveillance-type work, and it's also used for target-towing.



    Don't forget the Air Corps Cessnas are Reims machines: maybe they got a good trade-in deal?
    You can't really parachute out of a F406 though, low wing.:wink:

    anyway, if they got something like the CASA 212, that might mean never getting anything more sizable lke the C-298 or C-27J
    Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

    Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

  14. #38
    "Nice ass, Samson..." mutter nutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Banner
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by carrington View Post
    The Polish PZL Skytruck is similar to the CASA C-212 but even cheaper, around €4 million. The Twin Otter is back in production, priced less than €3 million. AFAIK, the Defender comes in at around €6 million.
    Now the Skytruck is supposed to be a good solid no bullshit aircraft, the things are used successfully all over the place, Vietnam, Venuzuala ect in shitty conditions.
    Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

    Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

  15. #39
    Major General ODIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,810
    Post Thanks / Like
    can carry 18 bods, or 12 airborne troops...looks good
    What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

  16. #40
    Soft-spoken Engineer Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Somewhere on OS map 47
    Posts
    1,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    Viking Twin Otter- Series 400

    Wikipedia: Twin Otter

    It seems that new-build Twin Otters have become an option again. An aircraft lineage with a well proven track record in both military and civilian hands, and the largest aircraft you can put floats on.

    Any thoughts?
    I appreciate that you're my employer, and an old man besides....

    But if you don't take your goddamn hands off me, I will cut you in half.

  17. #41
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's a great aircraft, but we have to go back to an earlier point.

    Why get a Twin Otter to observe/escort cash in transit operations? It's too much aircraft for that kind of a role, and a gas guzzler compared to the 172's.

    As a dedicated troop transport/parachute training aircraft, it would be fine - but you'd need another aircraft type to fill all the roles currently looked after by the Cessna.

    Whether this is worthwhile or not is a really big question. Is Para training really necessary? Would the IAC require/need/use a STOL semi-prepared strip capability?

  18. Likes DeV liked this post
  19. #42
    Intelligence Officer The Blue Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finner Air Station
    Posts
    516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Twin Engined Replacments

    The new order of the day seems to be for a twin engined aircraft for there requirments for the future and there is a plans to return to more basic military operations as rough field landings for various military purposes such as was mentioned to me as training with Army units for in-theatre resupply or medevac operations for example to get LSB and Army Units used to a more closer relationship with the IAC.

    Acourse the Aircraft would keep it survailance role as 172s always have. As has always been said the Defence Forces wants to expand its knowlegde and capability with miitary parachuting. This does not means that the DF will make a Parchute regiment but who nows down the line it could create a niche capability for lets say a infantry recce platoon or something who knows.

    More importantly we would have capability to fly aircraft at night,in adverse weather due its twin engines (certainly better then one) enlarged aircraft, Improved STOL etc.... there so much we could achieve out of smaller fleet of aircraft in comparsion to the current 172s. Hope this helps.
    British officer: You're seven minutes late, Mr. Collins.
    Michael Collins: You've kept us waiting 700 years. You can have your seven minutes.

    [As the British flag comes down]

    Michael Collins: So that's what all the bother was about.

  20. #43
    Private 2* aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have to agree with Blue Max and Carrington the purcahse of a CASA 212 or similiar would be of great advantage to the Aer Corps. A twin engine light cargo aircraft could offer a new capacity to the whole Defence Force. Airborne operations does not just mean parachuting troops, air drop has always been an effective way to supply troops in the field. Just have a look at operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where SF and other troops have been supplied by air drop. A CASA 212 could also be used in the SAR field.

    I cannot understand the logic in replacing the 172's with a similiar aircraft. The 172's do not seem to really furfill any useful military role and any similiar replacement would only do the same.

    Having completed Parachute Training (not with the Irish Army) I find it hard to see how the 172's undertook the Para Training role. For those who have done Para you will know what I mean.. no SIM Door or ramp capacity.

  21. #44
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like
    No-one is disputing that something like the Twin Otter or C-212 would offer a great leap in capability compared to the Cessna's.

    But why waste an expensive, capable troop transport in the CIT observation role?

    The Cessna's are also used for relatively menial tasks such as pilots getting hours in the air. Why use a large aircraft for that?

    I think a lot of people, myself included, would also like to see a relatively cheap, simple aircraft used in the pilot screening role - instead of them hopping straight into the PC-9's after simulator and theory time.

    Such an aircraft could double in the observation role for hour building etc etc.

    So, again, if the Air Corps see themselves getting C-212/Twin Otter type aircraft fine, but something else will then be needed to fill the void left by the Cessna's. In my opinion anyway.

  22. Likes DeV liked this post
  23. #45
    Serf hedgehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    14,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    think a lot of people, myself included, would also like to see a relatively cheap, simple aircraft used in the pilot screening role - instead of them hopping straight into the PC-9's after simulator and theory time

    Why is that
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  24. #46
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hedgehog View Post
    Why is that
    A couple of people have said it on this board, and on Franks if I remember right. GttC was one I think (hope!). "A lot" is probably wrong in all honesty though...

    Again, it's an opinion, I'm not in the Air Corps and they would know a lot more about it then I would. But to me using a cheaper aircraft, along the lines of a Cessna, would allow the IAC to see how lads reacted in flight, without having to use one of the pretty expensive PC-9's.

  25. #47
    Serf hedgehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    14,499
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks,

    I was just wondering

    Stay positive and eat healthy
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  26. #48
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi there
    Like I said before, if the great and mighty USAF, among others, feels the need for flight candidate screening aircraft, to weed out unsuitable persons, then the Air Corps should do likewise. Simulators are great but are not a full substitute for actual flight. The Cessnas are ideal first aircraft for cadets with no previous air experience.
    regards
    Gttc

  27. #49
    Private 2* aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    Has thought been put into using private own aircraft for flight screening. Still use DF staff but have a private aircraft and maintainence. I believe that the air crew intakes are only small so the cost should only be small

  28. #50
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    146
    Post Thanks / Like
    The training of zero flight experience pilot candidates are becoming a thing of the past in some Air Forces. More and more young pilot candidates are showing up with PPL's. Its becoming an unofficial pre-selection expectation. For example the USAF has moved on recently from taking non flyers and screening is now outsourced. Also the leasing of basic flight training aircraft by Air Forces are becoming more common e.g RAAF/RNZAF both lease the CT4E.

    For the IAC why not lease say 4 to 5 Cessna 182T's from Cessna for BFT/Observation and then spend more on a Twin Otter / C-212 type aircraft for the utility roles?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •