Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

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

  • #76
    The Air Corps seem to use the Cessna for a lot of pilot hour building.

    A UAV is going to be pretty useless at that, and if it's fixed wing hours they need then it rules helicopters out as well.

    They also do some Para work. Again, your UAV isn't going to help you.

    If they need replacement because of age then get either A) New Cessna's B) Some other cheap to purchase and operate aircraft.

    As regards Recce work/A deployable asset, of course they're deficient - but the Air Corps would be better off getting a new type entirely and keeping the Cessna's for the more humdrum day to day work like dropping Parachutists or allowing someone to get a few hours under their belt.

    Comment


    • #77
      hi there
      The Cessnas are poor parachute platforms at the best of times, as they can only hold 2 students and a jumpmaster or three freefallers.They are dead slow climbers and run out of puff at about 10,000 feet, which is why civilian jump schools prefer 182s or 206s and which is why the DF hires the services of Clonbulloge for a week each year.They can do more in one week that a year of begging for 172 time can deliver.In their own way, they are as worthy a buy as the Alouettes were, but they are less able to do their job as time goes on and should really be sold off and replaced with Caravans or Porters.
      regards
      GttC

      Comment


      • #78
        Cessna Caravans doing Airborne Ground Surveillance and Reconniassance for EUFOR in Bosnia:



        Can read a car's registration from altitude, while remaining unseen and unheard. More info. at http://www.ameriforce.net/PDF/rng_wi...6_18-20-22.pdf

        For parachuting, the Cessna Caravan is said to be able to take 15 jumpers to 13,000 feet in 12 minutes. (Is that good?) And of course it does general transport. So, is this the best bet for a 172 replacement? Cessnas to replace the Cessnas?

        Comment


        • #79
          Except the Caravan is 2 million euro? against 250,000 euro
          "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by ZULU View Post
            Except the Caravan is 2 million euro? against 250,000 euro
            There will be no need to replace them on a one-to-one basis, I don't think we will see more then 4 of the replacement aircrafts, but they will have a much increased capability, so the extra few bob will be worth it.
            "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
            Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
            Illegitimi non carborundum

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
              hi there
              The Cessnas are poor parachute platforms at the best of times, as they can only hold 2 students and a jumpmaster or three freefallers.They are dead slow climbers and run out of puff at about 10,000 feet, which is why civilian jump schools prefer 182s or 206s and which is why the DF hires the services of Clonbulloge for a week each year.They can do more in one week that a year of begging for 172 time can deliver.In their own way, they are as worthy a buy as the Alouettes were, but they are less able to do their job as time goes on and should really be sold off and replaced with Caravans or Porters.
              regards
              GttC
              Hey GttC, I mentioned that the 172's were used as hour builders. I heard that before, but I can't quote the source or even remember where I heard it - so would you have any idea of of the breakdown in hours of their current uses?

              I.E. how much of their time is spent doing para drops, surveillance, hour building, general utility etc.

              Roughly, not looking for opsec info!

              Comment


              • #82
                Giving pilots time in the air is not a good reason to buy more of a class of aircraft that has no other function that cannot be done better by other craft in the inventory. If that's all they're good for then charter a few private aircraft once in a while and let the boys joyride.
                UAVs beat a single seat cessna for recce, we are getting UAVs.
                Two military parachute a students in a cessna isn't a function, it's a pathetic joke.
                Pilots need time? Then spend money on a bird that provides a useful function - preferrably several - so that the pilots are getting useful time. I still vote for the Caravan. Rather 2 million well spent than 250,000 down the toilet. The Defence Forces and the Department both are going to have to get used to having bigger budgets, and increasing overseas roles. Who knows, get five of them and you could even push for the formation of an airborne company - to develop and keep the skills that might be required and expanded upon in wartime, isn't that how it goes?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Hi Pym
                  Didn't someone post the breakdown of all Air corps hours flown on this site? Some tasks can be done by different aircraft, ie, the Casas, the Cessnas and the helicopters can and do drop parachutists but only the Cessna tows targets...when the pilots are building hours on the Cessnas, they are not just blindly wazzing around, knocking off hours.They're either doing cashies or other military-orientated observational duties or such duties as fish counts, bird counts, forestry surveys and so on for Govt departments.Some of the flights are minor shite like picking someone up at A and bringing them to B. The new pilots stay on Cessnas until a slot further up the food chain appears, such as a PC-9 instructorial slot or a heli or multi-engined slot appears.It's a good grounding for them as it enables them to get very familiar with the countryside at low level(ideal for heli pilots) and it matures their decision-making processes.
                  regards
                  GttC

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Hi there
                    Apart from it's cost, the Caravan is brick-tough, easy to service and maintain, utterly reliable and, by being a turbine, uses the same Avtur fuel as the rest of the fleet and so takes Avgas out of the supply chain (which is in line with NATO's/EU's preference). they trialed them ages ago so it's only down to fudging as to why they haven't bought them before now.It's a no-brainer.
                    regards
                    GttC

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Have to agree, The Caravan is the logical choice.

                      Something close to it, at lower cost, more modern and also better shortfield operations (somewhat lower payload) is the Quest Kodiak. Possible contender?

                      Easyrider,
                      Interesting article. Most interested in the photos. Is the aircraft in the article the same as that in your photo or is there more then one? The reason I ask is as follows:

                      Your photo shows a sensor system under the tail of the aircraft which is not in the article. It makes me wonder if the staged photo shoot utilised a non equipped aircraft or are the photos altered? Note also the lack of Reg no on the article aircraft. The article also shows a post mission photo. I would be inclined to think that the left hand screen is a SAR image, probably with GMTI overlay, its all the rage these days. If so it is likely that the sensors on this machine cost more then the machine itself. Without these it is just a big plank with eyeballs up front, 172 is just as good at that.

                      Another interesting point is the parachute handles above the door, wonder what thats all about? Damn spooks never know what their up to!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        If that's all they're good for then charter a few private aircraft once in a while and let the boys joyride.
                        it happened in the past with the warriors. Its not beyond the bounds of reality to lease in aircraft to fill the void left betwwen basic training and operational types such as the PC9 which is a lead in trainer as opposed to a basic trainer.

                        Use your four or so caravans operationally having done the primary training on a leased in aircraft.
                        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
                          Have to agree, The Caravan is the logical choice.

                          Something close to it, at lower cost, more modern and also better shortfield operations (somewhat lower payload) is the Quest Kodiak. Possible contender?

                          Easyrider,
                          Interesting article. Most interested in the photos. Is the aircraft in the article the same as that in your photo or is there more then one? The reason I ask is as follows:

                          Your photo shows a sensor system under the tail of the aircraft which is not in the article. It makes me wonder if the staged photo shoot utilised a non equipped aircraft or are the photos altered? Note also the lack of Reg no on the article aircraft. The article also shows a post mission photo. I would be inclined to think that the left hand screen is a SAR image, probably with GMTI overlay, its all the rage these days. If so it is likely that the sensors on this machine cost more then the machine itself. Without these it is just a big plank with eyeballs up front, 172 is just as good at that.

                          Another interesting point is the parachute handles above the door, wonder what thats all about? Damn spooks never know what their up to!

                          The article mentions that CAE use a number of Caravans in Bosnia, so it may be that the photos in the article and the one I posted are of different machines. Certainly 'N950BZ' is one of them, as it also features in an article about EUFOR in the current issue of Air Forces Monthly.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            it happened in the past with the warriors. Its not beyond the bounds of reality to lease in aircraft to fill the void left betwwen basic training and operational types such as the PC9 which is a lead in trainer as opposed to a basic trainer.

                            Use your four or so caravans operationally having done the primary training on a leased in aircraft.

                            That sounds sensible. Maybe they can fully get over the foreign training phobia and send pilots on exchange programmes with some of the neighbours to gain time on other interesting types.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Coincidentally, there is a full page ad. in this month's 'Flying in Ireland' for... the Cessna Caravan.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Having read the comments of the merits of the Air Corps acquiring the Cessna 208 Caravan as a replacement for the Ce172s I think readers should be aware of some of the not so favourable statistics for the Ce208.

                                Certainly with nearly 1,500 produced (including 300 for Fedex) since its first flight in 1982 the type has been a commerical success. However, the Caravan has gained a rather unwanted reputation, to-date there have been 138 hull losses. A total of 286 lives have been lost in those incidents. In December 2007 alone there were 4 reported crashes. And the percentage for all occupants surviving a crash is a mere 21.3%. (source www.aviation-safetly.net)

                                Now if is correct that the Air Corps have discounted the Pc-6 on the grounds of its apparent safety record, then should the Caravan not be similarly discounted?

                                Grass

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X