Cessna Replacement - The Options

[Tempest]

This is hashed out every time the Air Corps get new aircraft - keep the Allouettes, keep Marchettis & get the new stuff as well!

That's not going to happen - if the DF put that in front of Finance the response would be "Well if you're still planning on flying them, there's clearly no need to replace them. So off you go. We're sure as hell not going to pay for the upkeep of an expanded fleet."

Well the fleet has seen substantial reduction, so I'm not sure that your argument holds water. The Air Corps need to make a case (if they can and want to) to AUGMENT the Cessna fleet with a type with additional capabilities to meet a defined requirement which they cannot/struggle to meet with the Cessnas. If they cannot make that case then why would they be looking for replacements? Replacing things just because they are the oldest in service is not a persuasive argument to bean counters.

[GoneToTheCanner]

well, it's also part of the move away from piston engines and because the Cessnas are effectively being supplanted by the capabilities of other aircraft, eg, they are marginal parachute aircraft at best and the prime user of DF parachuting facilities prefer bigger jump platforms, their target towing function is effectively over, their surveillance function is limited by a complete absence of a modern sensor fit and their actual army co-op role is fading by default. It might just be easier to flog them off to a graceful retirement and go down the turbine road.
regards
GttC

[DeV]

well, it's also part of the move away from piston engines and because the Cessnas are effectively being supplanted by the capabilities of other aircraft, eg, they are marginal parachute aircraft at best and the prime user of DF parachuting facilities prefer bigger jump platforms, their target towing function is effectively over, their surveillance function is limited by a complete absence of a modern sensor fit and their actual army co-op role is fading by default. It might just be easier to flog them off to a graceful retirement and go down the turbine road.
regards
GttC

But yet the roles are still there

[Tempest]

On the plus side, surely they are good and relatively inexpensive hour-builders for newly qualified pilots? Need a bigger aircraft for parachuting etc? Make the case and get extra airframes, then soon after proclaim them so good that we really need to replace the cessnas with more of them!

[GoneToTheCanner]

The problem is, the current purchase price for a new 172 would make your eyes water and you'd have no increase in capability as well as the piston engine. You may as well take the hit on the pocket for a turbine aircraft, especially for load carrying. The 172 had to be rerigged for target towing or parachuting every time, whereas a Caravan would simply be a turn-key operation because of it's load-carrying ability that the 172 lacks. Realistically, they should have got 182s or 206s because they can carry good loads. You can even get a turbine 206. The case can easily be made for a utility loadlifter that can operate off any surface and carry pretty much whatever can be fitted thru the door, be it cameras, survey or surveillance fits, paras, a target-towing rig or just humans on seats. You could, at a pinch, bring it overseas. Imagine how useful a Caravan would have been in Chad!

regards
GttC

[Tempest]

GttC, I was not suggesting buying more 172's, at any price!

[Charlie252]

Cessna T206 about $550K, doesn't seam like bad value given the increase in Utility...

[GoneToTheCanner]

I'd go for a turbine Caravan as a first choice, with maybe some of the other light turbines like the Kodiak as a runner up. You'd have to have something fairly tough because you'd expect to have to use it anywhere. The existing 172s have been in and out of plenty of grass strips in Ireland in their career and a successor would have to do the same. It would have to be a flying transit van, in effect, complete with breakfast roll and a wedge of receipts up on the dash!
regards
GttC

[Charlie252]

I'd go for a turbine Caravan as a first choice, with maybe some of the other light turbines like the Kodiak as a runner up. You'd have to have something fairly tough because you'd expect to have to use it anywhere. The existing 172s have been in and out of plenty of grass strips in Ireland in their career and a successor would have to do the same. It would have to be a flying transit van, in effect, complete with breakfast roll and a wedge of receipts up on the dash!
regards
GttC

Why?? The Caravan is a fine aircraft, but I think it is total overkill for the current roles of the 172, IF the 172's are to be replaced and the current roles are deemed worthwhile, then a more capable aircraft in the same class is the most logical replacement. There are a small number of light aircraft that fit the Bill to carry out the 172's missions, while also adding worthwhile utility. The Caravan is a Different aircraft in a different class, you would need to completely rewrite the mission profile and requirements to justify the added costs.

I think its like the C-130 replacement discussion, they realised, you just buy a newer C-130, you don't need a C-17 to replace a C-130..

I don't think the AC should just buy an aircraft because it is nice and offers more then the current fleet. I hope that a thorough review of the possible roles and missions of the AC in the future will be carried out. This would lead to a set of specifications and then the Aircraft evaluation could be carried out. I hope that a "Cessna Caravan Board" is not formed to purchase the inevitable!!

[DeV]

A bigger aircraft would potentially mean:
- sensor fit for ATCP/ATCA (including a backup for GASU PBN, recce, wildlife surveys, CIT escorts, maritime patrol etc) - making it more effective
- larger cabin for parachuting/air ambulance/VIP transport/utility transport - allowing more aircraft be on call / keep CASA hours for its primary role
- depending on the aircraft - multi-engine training - keeping CASA hours for primary role
- longer range &endurance - making it more effective

Disadvantages:
- maybe not a manoeuvrable (not sure)
- more expensive to purchase & maintain
- maybe not as pilot/soldier proof
- more expensive to operate
- depending on the aircraft higher training requirement (ie multi-engine)


In other words, it could undertake almost all the AC's roles

[Jetjock]

I tend to agree with C252, Gttc.

The Caravan is a whole different beast. It is in a completely different class. You certainly wouldn't be loitering at 500 feet on a CIT escort. Nor would you be landing in Birr or the likes.800m take off distance over a 50 ft obstacle. And you certainly wouldn't be sending off new cadets in it for command experience..it has a terrible safety reputation.

For a production run of around 2060 aircraft, there have been 367 fatalities. That is one person dead for every 5.6 Caravans built. That stat alone should deter anyone from considering it for an air arm that has had it's safety record come under scrutiny in recent times.

They really should look at the Airvan. It's a big step up as both Gttc and I can attest to. And it won't kill you.

If it must be a turbine then it's new and slightly bigger brother the turbine GA10 is most definitely worth a look.

[pym]

Don't think maneuverability or toughness is going to be an issue with aircraft like the Caravan or Kodiak.

Suspect the Air Corps are looking towards operational capabilities - as GttC mentioned had Caravans been available when in Chad, they could have offered a lot: recce missions, resupply to semi prepared strips etc.

A lot was made of the ARW involvement in the AW139 selection (at least in the press) and I'd expect the same will be true of this.

JJ/C252 - I agree the Caravan would be overkill for a lot of the existing roles, tbh I have pretty big doubts about the effectiveness of the 172's in CIT etc. The Garda aircraft are far better suited.

JJ - how much of that accident record is down to the type of flying undertaken by the Caravan into rough/badly prepared landing sites in remote locations? Any aircraft involved in that kind of flying appears to have a safety record that is orders of magnitude worse than any airliner - be they single or multi engined.

[Jetjock]

JJ/C252 - I agree the Caravan would be overkill for a lot of the existing roles, tbh I have pretty big doubts about the effectiveness of the 172's in CIT etc. The Garda aircraft are far better suited.

JJ - how much of that accident record is down to the type of flying undertaken by the Caravan into rough/badly prepared landing sites in remote locations? Any aircraft involved in that kind of flying appears to have a safety record that is orders of magnitude worse than any airliner - be they single or multi engined.

Surprisingly little actually. The Caravans safety record is poor, and is known to be so. Take a look at the various accidents here: http://aviation-safety.net/database/...datekey&page=1

It is not a suitable 172 replacement purely because they both have the Cessna name. If you are looking for a deployable recce/cargo type you are into a whole new definition of role and aircraft. A Caravan though cannot do all the roles of a 172.

Regarding CIT, the 172 is perfectly suited.

[Charlie252]

Guys, I think its important to try and avoid inventing roles to suit an aircraft. The AC on behalf of the Wider DF can make very sound arguments for a number of different mission profiles and the possible aircraft to fulfil those roles.
I don't believe a sound argument exists for expanding the C-172's missions to an aircraft in the Caravan class. The various light aircraft mentioned could more then adequately deal with the Para Ops etc that are required from the DF. There is no requirement to have a back up to the Garda Defender, and that aircraft has a very specialised mission fit and the AC would have no need to have an aircraft similarly equipped. I also believe the push for turbine power comes from a Snobbish attitude rather then any practical considerations.
The argument about possible roles in Chad is a mute point on many fronts not least which of which would be, How would the AC deploy an Aircraft in the Caravan class to Africa?

The best one can hope for, is that as a result of the White Paper, a defined role for the AC in overseas ops will be made. This would hopefully lead to procurement of aircraft, either more Heli's or maybe some sort of transport capability.

[cpxxx]

It does depend, as other have pointed out, on what the Air Corps needs or wants. If you're talking direct replacement then the Airvan is the only option. Even the base model GA8 represents an increase in capacity and it's docile handling, stability and reliability is second to none. and one or two IAC Cessna pilots have stuck their nose into Skydive Ireland's examples and expressed admiration for the type. There is a turbo version and indeed a turbine version in the offing. The Kodiak is a possibility too but as far as I know there's none in military service. The PC6 was mentioned but it has it's issues and it's a taildragger in a world of tri gears. Not suitable for wet behind the ears former cadets who need little invitation to find a way of writing off aeroplanes. I would agree that the Caravan is a step too far. I cannot see the PC12 having any military utility either.

But if a significant increase in capability is desired then it's twins. But what twin? There aren't a lot of new models around these days most with any useful military capability are too big and expensive. The only one that springs to mind is the Twin Otter.

My own opinion is that they should buy more helicopters. There is a question mark over the role of the Cessnas. How much of it is really needed? Quite a lot of it can be farmed out to civilian operators. Other jobs might be more logically done by helicopter

Maybe a mix of helis and a couple of fixed wing singles.