Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
    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...I don't think the AC should just buy an aircraft because it is nice and offers more then the current fleet.
    I don't completely agree with this analysis. Some of the historic roles of the FR172 (in addition to escorts) were not suited to the type in the first place.

    Parachuting; For specialist para ops training the Cessna was fine as there were small numbers of jumpers (as long as they had no specialist kit, which they had to leave behind anyway due to size/weight issues). For the general para course with larger numbers the Cessna was woefully inadequate; courses would take weeks. Sometimes the CASA would be used to try and speed things up, usually combined with the outbound leg of a patrol. Larger numbers per lift but only 1-2 jumps per day, and not every day. Jumpers then have to high-tail it back to Bal for the next flight (no para ops on the airfield). A caravan type aircraft would be cheaper to operate than the CASA and more efficient than the FR172 for large para training courses.

    Service support; Cessnas were often used to get techs to the location of a u/s aircraft. The improved tech crew/spare parts capacity of a caravan would give a better likelihood of returning the u/s aircraft to service quickly (given the complexity of the newer aircraft).

    Drogue: Not much of a challenge for the ADR to pick off a Cessna flying with a drogue into a headwind! A faster aircraft might provide them better training (albeit not exactly a massive increase).

    VIP; It could supplement moving bodies around the country more cheaply than a LR45 or AW139. Think King Air!

    A caravan type aircraft could provide a suitable sensor platform for the Army for Int or C2 missions as currently provided by larger aircraft during VIP visits.

    It could also do internal air ambulance (although the crewing would need to be thought out carefully).

    It could also increase the experience levels of pilots progressing onto GASU single pilot operations in the future.

    Finally, the current phase de jour in the DF is 'capability development'. The whole point is that the replacement "offers more then the current fleet". A like for like replacement of the FR172 would not fulfill this basic headline goal.

    Comment


    • Hi all,
      A Caravan works because it meets two important criteria, off the bat; it does away with the piston engine (which is effectively dead in the Don) and it increases the effective payload, compared to a 172, which was simply too small to do two of it's primary jobs to it's fullest extent. It has a well-proven engine, with which the Don is eminently familiar, it is tough and easily maintained and to answer 252s question, it can be ferried anywhere. If one had to deploy to Chad or there abouts, it could be there in a week. A turbine 206 would be nice but they are built as one-offs and do not have the same kind of sustainable supply chain.Cessna's supply chain is truly global.The Don would probably not ever touch a PC-6, because the little wheel is at the back.Helicopters cost too much money to use for basic small scale stuff and are even less useful for hour building low time pilots, especially since the Don prefers twin engined helis.An Airvan would be lovely, as they are essentially a small Caravan and they can loiter at 172 speeds or cruise at 120 kts, but only the turbine one would be acceptable.I'd happily recommend one.
      regards
      GttC

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
        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.
        Originally posted by cpxxx View Post
        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.
        Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
        Hi all,
        A Caravan works because it meets two important criteria, off the bat; it does away with the piston engine (which is effectively dead in the Don) and it increases the effective payload, compared to a 172, which was simply too small to do two of it's primary jobs to it's fullest extent. It has a well-proven engine, with which the Don is eminently familiar, it is tough and easily maintained and to answer 252s question, it can be ferried anywhere. If one had to deploy to Chad or there abouts, it could be there in a week. A turbine 206 would be nice but they are built as one-offs and do not have the same kind of sustainable supply chain.Cessna's supply chain is truly global.The Don would probably not ever touch a PC-6, because the little wheel is at the back.Helicopters cost too much money to use for basic small scale stuff and are even less useful for hour building low time pilots, especially since the Don prefers twin engined helis.An Airvan would be lovely, as they are essentially a small Caravan and they can loiter at 172 speeds or cruise at 120 kts, but only the turbine one would be acceptable.I'd happily recommend one.
        regards
        GttC
        Originally posted by Meatbomb
        Regarding CIT, the 172 is perfectly suited.






        Adding a FLIR etc would mean additional support for ground troops either on ex (or overseas), CIT, GASU backup (fit on PBN is OPSEC but it could provide some backup during downtime), wildlife surveys etc. it would mean the current jobs could be done better.

        The only new role I suggested is air ambulance, depending on the aircraft it may be able to go Don to London for example (helo may be better for onisland) everything else is existing roles. But a larger aircraft could do some of them better.

        Multi-engine really depends on what AC wants/needs (and the safety aspect). But Twin Otter sized is overkill and possibly may be too big for some of the jobs.

        Anything with a PT6 engine would have supply chain, training etc advantages.

        Helos do have the advantage for para training where you can get a higher number of lifts in a day. But say ARW training etc.


        .
        Last edited by DeV; 11 December 2013, 14:58.

        Comment


        • MOD: OPSEC details/suggestions removed

          At the risk of getting jumped on, a lot of the mission profiles that are mentioned here are either other state departments like inland fisheries, bog patrols, wildlife surveys and other stuff that the cessnas do for other departments. Let them do their own thing, let the DF select an a/c that suits it's needs. Also someone mentioned having FLIR fitted as it allows a backup for GASU a/c, well they seem to be happy doing their own thing and I doubt they will pay for this capability.

          My question, apart from the roles already mentioned which are for other state agencies, what roles do the DF need fulfilled by the cessnas? Ones that couldn't be done by joe bloggs with an AOC?
          Last edited by DeV; 11 December 2013, 20:15.

          Comment


          • MOD: Remember OPSEC !!!

            Comment


            • Hi all,
              Dev, helicopters are far too expensive for parachute operations. I understand that SF operators do learn to jump from them but it costs crazy money to do and it's hard on the aircraft. For a lot of the jobs that the existing 172s carry out, a heli would be way too much, because the sheer cost of doing even CIT cover would rise dramatically. You have to remember that the Cessnas are routinely tasked for mundane stuff like moving small amounts of people or parts or post from A to B, which is the beauty of them because they do mundane jobs cheaply. I remember doing a survey in the Don of the breakdown of Cessna tasks per aircraft and one aircraft, which had achieved about 370 hours in the air in that year, had spent about 50 of those hours on what was called "communications", ie, moving people and bits and tools about the place (self included, as I made several trips to Gormo to fix their engines). It was a bit of a catch-all phrase, as Cessnas to-ing and fro-ing to various airshows and local air displays were lumped into that category. Short of a Transit van, it was the cheapest (and reasonably quick) way to move people, but was obviously dependent on an airfield. So, whatever gets bought, it has to be able to do the unsexy, boring stuff as well as the "glamourous" tasks.

              regards
              GttC

              Comment


              • I know Gttc but that is what the AW139s are being used for on the Curragh.

                The advantage being the helo can land on the LZ, pick the jumps up and repeat. Not sure which would have the better rate of climb helo or Cessna replacement or if Cessna replacement could land on the Plains?

                Is there anything to stop them jumping in the Don or Gormo instead?

                Comment


                • Quite simply, they are doing it regardless of cost, unlike parachute centres and very unlike most Militaries. Using a twin-engined helicopter for such ops is basically pissing away fuel and airframe hours, as well as two pilots. It's basically using a limousine to do a transit's job. It's also more dangerous, because you cannot do static drops from a heli, so any jumpers you do drop have to be at least freefall-qualified as a minimum, so it's of no value for ab-initio parachutists............Fixed wing aircraft were using the Curragh since before WW2 and any of the suggested 172 replacements mentioned here could easily do it. There is so much room available there, it's a sin not to do so. For years, a 185 used to fly sports jumpers off the main Curragh racecourse and also from Punchestown, not to mind Hacketstown and Clonbulloge, Ernagh, Birr and others. So, it's not undoable, by any means.
                  regards
                  GttC

                  Comment


                  • Meatbomb, as an example of other depts doing their won thing, Duchas routinely use hired civil aircraft for aerial photography, from helis to light fixed-wing. I know one of their senior photogs and he said that they got pissed off with the Donners, constantly cancelling photo jobs so they simply voted with their money and hire aircraft as needed, which suits aviation companies trying to make a living.
                    regards
                    GttC

                    Comment


                    • Who says you can't do static drops from a heli?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                        you cannot do static drops from a heli, so any jumpers you do drop have to be at least freefall-qualified as a minimum, so it's of no value for ab-initio parachutists
                        You can do static line jumps from a helicopter. The DF static line course has been using the AW139 this last few years for jumps. The US military and others has been using heli's for decades for static line jumps. Its very common for the US army to use their Blackhawks.

                        Comment


                        • Will the IAA be comfortable with ad hoc landing strips?

                          Comment


                          • There was a landing strip on the Curragh north of the Watertower. I flew in Cessnas from and back to it on a number of occasions. Don't know why they stopped using it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Smithy View Post
                              There was a landing strip on the Curragh north of the Watertower. I flew in Cessnas from and back to it on a number of occasions. Don't know why they stopped using it.
                              Beyond the sign saying no vehicles past this point/no driving on the Plains.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                                Quite simply, they are doing it regardless of cost, unlike parachute centres and very unlike most Militaries. Using a twin-engined helicopter for such ops is basically pissing away fuel and airframe hours, as well as two pilots. It's basically using a limousine to do a transit's job. It's also more dangerous, because you cannot do static drops from a heli, so any jumpers you do drop have to be at least freefall-qualified as a minimum, so it's of no value for ab-initio parachutists...
                                GttC
                                I have jumped from single and twin rotor helicopters many times; it is done routinely by most Armies that have Airborne Forces.
                                For the exit to be safe the helo moves forward at a speed of 65 knots, about half the speed of a C-130, so you get a smoother opening shock.

                                Hell, I've jumped from a balloon with 1 Para !!
                                "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

                                Never give up!!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X