Thanks Thanks:  43
Likes Likes:  140
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 428
  1. #401
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    if anyone is interested in the Scorpion/AT-6 thing, theres a load of shots of them going low level through the Welsh countryside here...

    http://http://www.fightercontrol.co....?f=16&t=100908

  2. Likes pym, FMP liked this post
  3. #402
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,095
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder would RGJ finally accept the Pajero in the cash escort role - if there was a Scorpion overhead with EO turret, comms relay pod & a 4 Hellfires under the wings

  4. Likes FMP liked this post
  5. #403
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    FMP - the Cessna's also operate as a repeater for comms - they're cheap, slow, high winged, tough & adaptable. So perfect for the role.

    PC-9 is a totally different beast.
    True, very true. Are they not reaching the end of their life though? My point is don't replace them. Let them retire after a long and fulfilling career. PC-9 is a modern capable aircraft that can perform all of the above and many more tasks than it is utilised for, both day and night, in hail rain and snow (ish), at altitude, out of sight out of mind. Spend your money on the kit to make them even better. Give the flight crews genuine tasking's. Bring the PC -9 fleet back to strength. There are better ways to spend money than replacing an aircraft that had borderline WWII technology and relied on line of sight Mk 1 eyeball to get eyes on.

    ISTAR: Is a practice that links several functions together to assist a force in employing its sensors and managing the information they gather in real time in order to improve a commander’s situational awareness and consequently their decision making.

    In a nutshell: Passage of information. Communication. Day and night, in hail rain and snow, at altitude, out of sight,,,,,,,,,you get my point

    Just think the old Cessna's past it pym. Time to let it go (and NOT replace it) .
    Last edited by FMP; 15th July 2014 at 14:20.
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  6. #404
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    ....There are better ways to spend money than replacing an aircraft that had borderline WWII technology and relied on line of sight Mk 1 eyeball to get eyes on....
    are you sure you aren't talking about the PC-9's?

    my view is that unless the PC-9M's can be radically, and relatively cheaply, 'up-tasked' (ISTAR/CAS/Overwatch/Air Policing) its them that should go - the 172's have got to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the PC-9's to operate, and if they are doing the same job, sat over a CIT wagon relaying comms, then it makes little sense to piss money up the wall by using the PC-9 to do it.

  7. Likes DeV, Meatbomb liked this post
  8. #405
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    are you sure you aren't talking about the PC-9's?

    my view is that unless the PC-9M's can be radically, and relatively cheaply, 'up-tasked' (ISTAR/CAS/Overwatch/Air Policing) its them that should go - the 172's have got to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the PC-9's to operate, and if they are doing the same job, sat over a CIT wagon relaying comms, then it makes little sense to piss money up the wall by using the PC-9 to do it.
    Fcuk are they that bad . But what else are they doing ropebag? In all honesty. What do they do to earn there keep? Air shows? Bit of target practice? Training flight crews to use modern glass cockpits so they can fly,,,,,,PC-9's (yes yes yes i know CASA's MATS etc). Air policing, CAS. Against who? What? Where? That's jet talk. By the way I do like that Scorpion/AT-6 thing fantastic little aircraft and a nice price to boot.

    Everything comes back to CIT don't it . I see your point but what happens when the sun goes down, if the 172's cant actually "see" at night what good are they in an age when the DF and the GS operate round the clock. Its all well and good being able to pass on the bar order to camp from a C/S about to complete their last task but that's not overwatch. Not if you cant see them because its 17:30 on a December evening and there's a spot of good old Irish rain in the air. That's a listening watch.

    The kit is out there and the last decade has brought on advances faster than any decade before it. There are suitable ISTAR pods compatible with light prop driven aircraft. Designed for them in fact. They don't cost the world and in reality how many would you need? 7 aircraft to upgrade in order to accept them but divided between training, maintenance and an air show or two. How many will you actually be left to play with? Two? Lets say two, that's two that can operate (or could if they were upgraded) 24 hours a day (on rotation). Just like the Army, NS and the GS. Applying the same reasoning to the 172's how many are available for "other" task's at any one time? First, apart from listening watch, what can they actually do at 03:25? Not a whole pile me thinks. So no matter how many are actually available that availability (beyond rebro) becomes a paper excersise as soon as the sun sets.

    There is only one reason in the world I suggested spending a bit of money on the PC-9's and expanding their capability,,,,,,it's all the AC have and I don't see them getting replaced anytime soon. Make the most of them, don't let them be just an expensive trainer, make them work for a living. Broaden your (The AC's) horizons and look at the wider role they could play in ATCP/A.

    I'm not talking about warlike role's but the experience gained in an ATCP/A assist would translate into just that, you use the kit the same way. Lets Hover for a bit and see if I can give you a scenario based example of what I mean .

    Lets create a drug running example.

    The GS approach the DF for assistance in an intelligence led operation on the west coast. Boat load of "drugs" expected to make landfall somewhere on the secluded coastline in the early hours of the morning, bad boys armed and nasty. No prob's says the DF and off go the duty PC's to hang about in Galway till its time for wheels up. Meanwhile a couple of Army ISTAR types head off to meet the GS ASU who will be taking care of things on land. The Army types bring their recently bought toy with them, ROVER. Laptop type thingy with a big donkey dick aerial. Works wonderfully with the TA function of ISTAR.

    01:34 & 1/2. Time to play, off goes a PC (on rotation) and start's it's ISR function. 16,000 ft, pitch dark and a bit of drizzle. Not a problem. All that lovely kit is sucking up information, listening to chatter and transmitting same to the NS who in turn is analysing it. NS HQ sending all sorts of information about transponders and names of boats and locations back to ISR pod. LE Sam is over the horizon and is is privy to all the same. Woohoo! Found our chaps! Time now to switch on the TA function. Still at 16,000 in the dark and the rain, the screen in the PC beams forth a lovely clear image of our chaps in their lovely boat, clear as day. Zoom in zoom out zoom in zoom out zoom in zoom out (Aircrew's first Op ) zoom in zoom out,,,,,,,. Army types switch on ROVER and now they can see what the air crew see's what the TA function see's. Real time clear as day footage of the bad boys in their boat. They and the GS ASU can watch them drop anchor, transfer the "drugs" to their small boat and head for shore. Army types and GS ASU can (using the ROVER stylus) draw pictures that the air can see, "zoom in here, whats that cliff path like, can we be seen if we go here". All part of the planning and decision making, safe and sound out of sight and out of mind. Little boat hits the beach. LE Sam pours on the coal and from over the horizon steams towards the boat at anchor off the coast, boat crews and boarding party at the ready. ASU move in for the arrest,,,,,,,,,.


    etc, etc, etc, Ad Nauseum.

    A joint Army, AC, NS, GS operation in "defense" of the state. I can think of a dozen other applications for the same type of Op. You see where this is going, yes the PC's are more expensive that the 172's but there also far more capable than the 172's if applied properly. They are also a lot less expensive to run that the C 235's who have other tasks to preform anyway and there's only two of them.

    All sound a bit airy fairy? Maybe. Maybe not. Op's like this happen every day the world over using similar assets. Apply yourselves, expand your operational capability using what you have and making it better. Think out side the box as they say. To achieve it all that is required is a bit of money being spent and the will to peruse it. Finances aside is the will there in the first place? Perhaps not. In which case your dead right ropebag. Buy more Cessna's, work from 9 to 5 and all move to Ryanair in a few years.

    Anyway work to do, enough with the story telling . Bring on the C 295's. After all that is what my post was about in the first place .
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  9. Thanks Truck Driver thanked for this post
  10. #406
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    Even without a vehicle in the back, going by commercial airliner will be the preferred choice if you think you might need to take a whizz:
    Could always just fit a C 130 type crapper in one. Fits nicely by the ramp for those in the rear. Mind you if your the shy retiring type your kinda fcuked . But if you cant take a joke,,,shouldn't have joined up .
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by FMP; 16th July 2014 at 08:57.
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  11. #407
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post

    My main point about the 295 was the versatility and affordability of this air frame'. In maritime patrol to cargo to para drop to emergency medical flights etc all due to the palletised mission systems that were designed for it. You basically have a standard cargo version of the aircraft (3 of them preferably ) but have the ability to change its role by selecting which pallets you shove in the back. The air frames would all be supplied with nose mounted FLIR, radar etc etc but the expensive mission suite's in the hold would not be required. Just a few palletised systems that you can chop and change. Interesting option BUT it only really works if you have a number of air frames to play with. 3 is the magic number .


    Good link to the palletised mission system.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P475t_uZUUI

    Couple of links to the C 295 in use in Canada and the Airbus site.

    http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com...C295About.aspx

    http://c295.ca/c295-canadian-sar/c295-overview/

    http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...itimepatrolai/
    Speaking of pallets. AGAIN!!! Attached are other variation on a theme. Same concept, different air frame's BUT same pallet. The 463 L. Compatible with everything from CH 47 to C17 to C 295 and a lot more in between.

    The idea is don't make your airframe a one trick pony. Use palletised mission systems in your basic airframe and one day your cargo is an MPA, the next its Medevac, the next its air dropping supplies to the stranded residents on Cape Clear, the next its doing para drops, the next its full of comfy seats and doing MATS (ok maybe not MATS, get the train idle fcukers). But you get the point.

    Again link to C 295, for those that missed it .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P475t_uZUUI

    So just how useful would two or three C 295's be at home? Done right? Pretty damn useful I would say.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  12. Likes DeV liked this post
  13. #408
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,898
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    Fcuk are they that bad . But what else are they doing ropebag? In all honesty. What do they do to earn there keep? Air shows? Bit of target practice? Training flight crews to use modern glass cockpits so they can fly,,,,,,PC-9's (yes yes yes i know CASA's MATS etc). Air policing, CAS. Against who? What? Where? That's jet talk. By the way I do like that Scorpion/AT-6 thing fantastic little aircraft and a nice price to boot.

    Everything comes back to CIT don't it . I see your point but what happens when the sun goes down, if the 172's cant actually "see" at night what good are they in an age when the DF and the GS operate round the clock. Its all well and good being able to pass on the bar order to camp from a C/S about to complete their last task but that's not overwatch. Not if you cant see them because its 17:30 on a December evening and there's a spot of good old Irish rain in the air. That's a listening watch.

    The kit is out there and the last decade has brought on advances faster than any decade before it. There are suitable ISTAR pods compatible with light prop driven aircraft. Designed for them in fact. They don't cost the world and in reality how many would you need? 7 aircraft to upgrade in order to accept them but divided between training, maintenance and an air show or two. How many will you actually be left to play with? Two? Lets say two, that's two that can operate (or could if they were upgraded) 24 hours a day (on rotation). Just like the Army, NS and the GS. Applying the same reasoning to the 172's how many are available for "other" task's at any one time? First, apart from listening watch, what can they actually do at 03:25? Not a whole pile me thinks. So no matter how many are actually available that availability (beyond rebro) becomes a paper excersise as soon as the sun sets.

    There is only one reason in the world I suggested spending a bit of money on the PC-9's and expanding their capability,,,,,,it's all the AC have and I don't see them getting replaced anytime soon. Make the most of them, don't let them be just an expensive trainer, make them work for a living. Broaden your (The AC's) horizons and look at the wider role they could play in ATCP/A.

    I'm not talking about warlike role's but the experience gained in an ATCP/A assist would translate into just that, you use the kit the same way. Lets Hover for a bit and see if I can give you a scenario based example of what I mean .

    Lets create a drug running example.

    The GS approach the DF for assistance in an intelligence led operation on the west coast. Boat load of "drugs" expected to make landfall somewhere on the secluded coastline in the early hours of the morning, bad boys armed and nasty. No prob's says the DF and off go the duty PC's to hang about in Galway till its time for wheels up. Meanwhile a couple of Army ISTAR types head off to meet the GS ASU who will be taking care of things on land. The Army types bring their recently bought toy with them, ROVER. Laptop type thingy with a big donkey dick aerial. Works wonderfully with the TA function of ISTAR.

    01:34 & 1/2. Time to play, off goes a PC (on rotation) and start's it's ISR function. 16,000 ft, pitch dark and a bit of drizzle. Not a problem. All that lovely kit is sucking up information, listening to chatter and transmitting same to the NS who in turn is analysing it. NS HQ sending all sorts of information about transponders and names of boats and locations back to ISR pod. LE Sam is over the horizon and is is privy to all the same. Woohoo! Found our chaps! Time now to switch on the TA function. Still at 16,000 in the dark and the rain, the screen in the PC beams forth a lovely clear image of our chaps in their lovely boat, clear as day. Zoom in zoom out zoom in zoom out zoom in zoom out (Aircrew's first Op ) zoom in zoom out,,,,,,,. Army types switch on ROVER and now they can see what the air crew see's what the TA function see's. Real time clear as day footage of the bad boys in their boat. They and the GS ASU can watch them drop anchor, transfer the "drugs" to their small boat and head for shore. Army types and GS ASU can (using the ROVER stylus) draw pictures that the air can see, "zoom in here, whats that cliff path like, can we be seen if we go here". All part of the planning and decision making, safe and sound out of sight and out of mind. Little boat hits the beach. LE Sam pours on the coal and from over the horizon steams towards the boat at anchor off the coast, boat crews and boarding party at the ready. ASU move in for the arrest,,,,,,,,,.


    etc, etc, etc, Ad Nauseum.

    A joint Army, AC, NS, GS operation in "defense" of the state. I can think of a dozen other applications for the same type of Op. You see where this is going, yes the PC's are more expensive that the 172's but there also far more capable than the 172's if applied properly. They are also a lot less expensive to run that the C 235's who have other tasks to preform anyway and there's only two of them.

    All sound a bit airy fairy? Maybe. Maybe not. Op's like this happen every day the world over using similar assets. Apply yourselves, expand your operational capability using what you have and making it better. Think out side the box as they say. To achieve it all that is required is a bit of money being spent and the will to peruse it. Finances aside is the will there in the first place? Perhaps not. In which case your dead right ropebag. Buy more Cessna's, work from 9 to 5 and all move to Ryanair in a few years.

    Anyway work to do, enough with the story telling . Bring on the C 295's. After all that is what my post was about in the first place .
    There is some merit in some of your suggestions but:
    - If Mk1 Eyeball is required you want high wings
    - you want it to be multi-role you want more space?
    - you want to orbit an area slowly (and cheaply)?
    - cost per hour for an extended duration?

  14. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
  15. #409
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,095
    Post Thanks / Like
    I see where you're coming from FMP - and there's a lot of merit in the ideas.

    There has been talk of late of replacing the Cessna's - and it seems like it's a possibility.

    My way of doing things (this minute) would be to go for an BN Islander aka Defender - the British AAC use them in a similar domestic ISTAR role to what you're talking about. Versus the PC-9, they're slow, high winged and can loiter for an eternity - and that's what you need.

    Added bonus - they could be used for twin engine training & the AC has operational experience of the type with the Garda a/c. Get 4 of them & enough ISTAR kit for two.

    Another thing is, the British adapted defensive aids etc for the Defender, for use in Iraq/Afgh - so potentially the AC could offer an Air component to existing Army ISTAR commitment to EUFOR.

    Also, if you're gawking at a yacht 100M out in the Atlantic - nice to have the second engine

    But, it's not all or nothing. If you can hang your ISTAR pods off the Defender & you can swap them on to a PC-9M if needed.

    https://flic.kr/p/o2D5Kr
    Last edited by pym; 16th July 2014 at 14:40.

  16. Thanks FMP, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes FMP, ropebag, Turkey, Meatbomb liked this post
  17. #410
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,913
    Post Thanks / Like
    Given that they are already well versed with the Defender, they'd probably go for that if it was also able to function as a multi-engine trainer as well as an observation aircraft, and they love the idea of getting rid of avgas fuelled piston singles. The natural advantage of the Defender being able to conduct safe, slow flight as well as being able to use much more of the country's airfields/airstrips, if you had to, compared to a PC-9, speaks for itself. They could also get a clean, utility version for general duties such as the Cessnas routinely carry out. Given that the Defenders are in the same parts stream as the Pilati also matters, especially to bean counters.

  18. Likes pym, hptmurphy, DeV, FMP liked this post
  19. #411
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Given that they are already well versed with the Defender, they'd probably go for that if it was also able to function as a multi-engine trainer as well as an observation aircraft, and they love the idea of getting rid of avgas fuelled piston singles. The natural advantage of the Defender being able to conduct safe, slow flight as well as being able to use much more of the country's airfields/airstrips, if you had to, compared to a PC-9, speaks for itself. They could also get a clean, utility version for general duties such as the Cessnas routinely carry out. Given that the Defenders are in the same parts stream as the Pilati also matters, especially to bean counters.
    Where do I even begin.. The defender is an appalling aircraft in almost every sense of the word! It is badly built, under powered, has terrible serviceability and is not safe to fly slowly mainly because of a very averse Power/Drag curve. The aircraft is produced by a small cottage industry on the Isle of White and has almost no traction in the international market and as a result has no appreciable supply chain, the link with Pilatus was severed years ago. I can't imagine anybody has anything good to say about the PBN 4000.

  20. Thanks Tenet thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, Tenet, FMP, Dogwatch liked this post
  21. #412
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,898
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Where do I even begin.. The defender is an appalling aircraft in almost every sense of the word! It is badly built, under powered, has terrible serviceability and is not safe to fly slowly mainly because of a very averse Power/Drag curve. The aircraft is produced by a small cottage industry on the Isle of White and has almost no traction in the international market and as a result has no appreciable supply chain, the link with Pilatus was severed years ago. I can't imagine anybody has anything good to say about the PBN 4000.

    1998-2003 AC Servicability
    Cessna 61%
    Defender 82%


    Inspite of those issues
    Last edited by DeV; 18th July 2014 at 08:03.

  22. #413
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    1998-2003 AC Servicability
    Cessna 61%
    Defender 82%
    How many hours did the aircraft fly? What was the basis for quantifying the serviceability? Those figures are a decade old!
    Was it the same as a commercial airliner, dispatch within 15mins of scheduled time, in which case airliners are over 99% or is that the aircraft was serviceable for some period of 82% of the days in the year...

    My understanding is this aircraft has very low utilisation even by AC standards in 2012 it flew 91 times for 156.92 Hrs...

  23. Likes Dogwatch liked this post
  24. #414
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,795
    Post Thanks / Like
    Too add to that, I would also question the credibility of any poster mooting a non retractable aircraft for twin engine training. It just isn't aviation best practice.

  25. #415
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,095
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, I just got served.

    I suggested the Defender based on the fact that the British AAC have them up every day on operational work and UK police services also have them. The Islander is used in the civil world as a communications repeater platform & also of course as a passenger aircraft, in developed, well regulated countries.

    So I assumed it must have something going for it.

    The above posts would strongly suggest otherwise - and obviously those with direct experience of the a/c is of a lot more worth than an idle outside observer.

    JJ, point also taken on the problems associated with a fixed undercarriage in twin training.

    I'll get me coat.

  26. Likes Shaqra, Charlie252, DeV, Dogwatch liked this post
  27. #416
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,913
    Post Thanks / Like
    @C252, Clonbulloge used a piston Islander for years as a drop aircraft (I even flew it) and it behaves beautifully at slow speeds and can sit all day at slow speeds (loitering) and Clonbulloge and Aer Arran will tell you all you need to know about serviceability in hard operating environments, even with finicky piston engines. You are right about the cottage industry nature of it's build, which is by-order only (so were the Marchettis, as a historical note). With regard to having a fixed-gear and ME training (@JJ), how do you think pilots have ever converted to the Islander/Partenavia/Twin Otter and others? they take account of the fact that the wheels don't retract and adapt the training programme accordingly. In the CAA system, I'm told that they will not allow you to get a full ME rating unless you get some time in a Seneca or Duchess first, so that you are aware of the difference. As you know perfectly well, the critical thing about ME training is the presence of a second engine and it's potential failure case. I'd be more impressed if the Don got it's act together with regard to serviceability (such as it's inability to retain techs, who don't want to do tours of Lebanon to keep their jobs or can't get promoted because Army NCOs have right of way).

    regards
    GttC

  28. Likes DeV liked this post
  29. #417
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,898
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    How many hours did the aircraft fly? What was the basis for quantifying the serviceability? Those figures are a decade old!
    Was it the same as a commercial airliner, dispatch within 10-40 mins (depending on the time of day) of scheduled time, in which case airliners are over 99% or is that the aircraft was serviceable for some period of 82% of the days in the year...

    My understanding is this aircraft has very low utilisation even by AC standards in 2012 it flew 91 times for 156.92 Hrs...
    Correction those are the 2003 figures (not the average over the period)

    Total Hours 2002:
    Cessna 784 hrs / 6 aircraft
    Defender 562 hrs / 1 aircraft

    Servicability rate "proportion of time that an aircraft is available for service". IE it isn't down for scheduled/unscheduled maintenance

    I can only give the figures available and published.

    Unlike most civvy aircraft, the Defender is on call (rather than scheduled (although some flights could be)) and is must be in the air in something like 20 minutes when not down for maintenance.

    Defender hours/missions you are correct (not including training)
    Last edited by DeV; 18th July 2014 at 21:01.

  30. #418
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    @C252, Clonbulloge used a piston Islander for years as a drop aircraft (I even flew it) and it behaves beautifully at slow speeds and can sit all day at slow speeds (loitering) and Clonbulloge and Aer Arran will tell you all you need to know about serviceability in hard operating environments, even with finicky piston engines. You are right about the cottage industry nature of it's build, which is by-order only (so were the Marchettis, as a historical note). With regard to having a fixed-gear and ME training (@JJ), how do you think pilots have ever converted to the Islander/Partenavia/Twin Otter and others? they take account of the fact that the wheels don't retract and adapt the training programme accordingly. In the CAA system, I'm told that they will not allow you to get a full ME rating unless you get some time in a Seneca or Duchess first, so that you are aware of the difference. As you know perfectly well, the critical thing about ME training is the presence of a second engine and it's potential failure case. I'd be more impressed if the Don got it's act together with regard to serviceability (such as it's inability to retain techs, who don't want to do tours of Lebanon to keep their jobs or can't get promoted because Army NCOs have right of way).
    Granted the Piston Islander is a nice little aircraft for Island Hopping, Para ops etc. The Defender 4000 is a different beast, and very compromised at that. The aircraft was developed with a very low budget and so has a longer fuselage(from the trislander) and higher weight, and more installed power but is power limited due to VMCA issues as the tail was not upscaled for the larger aircraft, this would have cost to much to certify.
    The Aircraft is IFR capable on paper, in practice it is not so easy, firstly you have a very limited single engine fly away ability, it is certified as such, it is not a JAR 25 aircraft. However, this has significant implications as to how you could operate the aircraft in an IFR environment. Also it is certified for flight in icing again however with the caveat that it is only certified for flight in known LIGHT icing, not ideal in Ireland when you operate up to 10K ft. The payload ability is quite restricted given the size of the aircraft, you can't carry much more then a C-206 for example.

    In my opinion one of the most misguided statements on the PWC report on the AC in the 90's was that the AC should replace its heli's and fixed wing ircraft with "Squirrel type helicopters and Defender type aircraft"

    Most if not all aircraft are "by order only" I can't really think of any aircraft that are produced and then look for customers.

    I sincerely hope that the Defender does not form any part of the AC of the Future, if funds can be made available, in the near future for some kind of Capital programme. Lets hope they are spent in a more interesting manner then on a Cessna Replacement.

  31. Likes Dogwatch liked this post
  32. #419
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,898
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Granted the Piston Islander is a nice little aircraft for Island Hopping, Para ops etc. The Defender 4000 is a different beast, and very compromised at that. The aircraft was developed with a very low budget and so has a longer fuselage(from the trislander) and higher weight, and more installed power but is power limited due to VMCA issues as the tail was not upscaled for the larger aircraft, this would have cost to much to certify.
    The Aircraft is IFR capable on paper, in practice it is not so easy, firstly you have a very limited single engine fly away ability, it is certified as such, it is not a JAR 25 aircraft. However, this has significant implications as to how you could operate the aircraft in an IFR environment. Also it is certified for flight in icing again however with the caveat that it is only certified for flight in known LIGHT icing, not ideal in Ireland when you operate up to 10K ft. The payload ability is quite restricted given the size of the aircraft, you can't carry much more then a C-206 for example.

    In my opinion one of the most misguided statements on the PWC report on the AC in the 90's was that the AC should replace its heli's and fixed wing ircraft with "Squirrel type helicopters and Defender type aircraft"

    Most if not all aircraft are "by order only" I can't really think of any aircraft that are produced and then look for customers.

    I sincerely hope that the Defender does not form any part of the AC of the Future, if funds can be made available, in the near future for some kind of Capital programme. Lets hope they are spent in a more interesting manner then on a Cessna Replacement.
    Why did it recommend those types?
    Commonality with aircraft already in thd fleet and reduction in operated types, why?
    Lots of reasons
    - don't have hold spares for 2 different types
    - less ops hours lost to type and other training
    - more aircrew and tech personnel rated on type therefore increased availability
    - more potentional for aircraft to rerole

  33. #420
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can the PWC report be read or downloaded somewhere online?

  34. #421
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Can the PWC report be read or downloaded somewhere online?
    Not any more

  35. #422
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Best I could find online:

    According to Air International (Oct 98) the following were among the main Price Waterhouse recommendations regarding the Air Corps :

    (The article states that although the AC has only a small fleet, it comprises 11 different aircraft types, which ideally should be rationalised while still being able to fulfil the same variety of roles )

    PRICE WATERHOUSE RECOMMENDATIONS :
    - To upgrade and rationalise the helicopter fleet, it is recommended that the existing eight Alouette III, five Dauphins and two (now one) Gazelles are replaced by eight Eurocopter Squirrel-type helicopters.
    - Purchase of four medium-lift helicopters is also advised over the next four years as part of a major investment plan, as the report states that the IAC will not be able to function without re-equipment.
    - The six Cessna FR.172H/Ks should be replaced by two BN Defender-type aircraft.
    - The six Magisters and seven SF.260WEs should be replaced by eight examples of a single type of light strike/trainer aircraft.
    - A substitute should also be found for the Beech 200.
    - The two CN-235s and Gulfstream IV remain in service. The former are not due for replacement until 2024, by which time, the report notes, "the whole scenario in relation to fishery protection may have changed".

    - The review also recommends a 10% reduction in AC personnel down to 930 (concentrated at maintenance and engineering levels)
    - Greater independence from the Army - Relocation of AC HQ to Casement.
    - GASU expansion from the current (1998) two aircraft.
    - Suggests the contracting out of basic flying training training and air traffic control sholud also be considered.

    The article also states " The GOC (then Cranfield) has also intimated that he would like to change the name of the Air Corps to something more contemporary, as the name dates back to 1924 (prior to which it had been the Irish Air Service).
    Last edited by Charlie252; 18th July 2014 at 20:15.

  36. Thanks Rhodes, pym, na grohmiti thanked for this post
  37. #423
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,913
    Post Thanks / Like
    with regard to built on order, in the case of Defender hulls, the aircraft was built sporadically and no hulls were stocked and the spares holding for major parts was very small. It was the same case for the Marchettis, which was why Marchetti spares were so expensive, despite there being several hundred built. If the aircraft is as bad as you say, then how did it get certified and why did the Don buy it??............to quote the PWC, a substitute should be found for the King Air. Dead right; a C90GT for ME-IR and a 350 for short MATS, with a cargo door for stretchers.
    .

  38. #424
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,898
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Can the PWC report be read or downloaded somewhere online?
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Best I could find online:

    According to Air International (Oct 98) the following were among the main Price Waterhouse recommendations regarding the Air Corps :

    (The article states that although the AC has only a small fleet, it comprises 11 different aircraft types, which ideally should be rationalised while still being able to fulfil the same variety of roles )

    PRICE WATERHOUSE RECOMMENDATIONS :
    - To upgrade and rationalise the helicopter fleet, it is recommended that the existing eight Alouette III, five Dauphins and two (now one) Gazelles are replaced by eight Eurocopter Squirrel-type helicopters.
    - Purchase of four medium-lift helicopters is also advised over the next four years as part of a major investment plan, as the report states that the IAC will not be able to function without re-equipment.
    - The six Cessna FR.172H/Ks should be replaced by two BN Defender-type aircraft.
    - The six Magisters and seven SF.260WEs should be replaced by eight examples of a single type of light strike/trainer aircraft.
    - A substitute should also be found for the Beech 200.
    - The two CN-235s and Gulfstream IV remain in service. The former are not due for replacement until 2024, by which time, the report notes, "the whole scenario in relation to fishery protection may have changed".

    - The review also recommends a 10% reduction in AC personnel down to 930 (concentrated at maintenance and engineering levels)
    - Greater independence from the Army - Relocation of AC HQ to Casement.
    - GASU expansion from the current (1998) two aircraft.
    - Suggests the contracting out of basic flying training training and air traffic control sholud also be considered.

    The article also states " The GOC (then Cranfield) has also intimated that he would like to change the name of the Air Corps to something more contemporary, as the name dates back to 1924 (prior to which it had been the Irish Air Service).
    The PWC report actually said very little about the AC apart from the strength and need for medium lift helicopters (to take over SAR and to allow the army to be more rapidly deployable (to take account of barracks closures)).

    That level of detail was in the Special Report on the NS and AC, which was published around 2001. Having said that, everything above was in it (apart from a name change).
    Last edited by DeV; 18th July 2014 at 20:22.

  39. #425
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    If the aircraft is as bad as you say, then how did it get certified and why did the Don buy it??............to quote the PWC, a substitute should be found for the King Air. Dead right; a C90GT for ME-IR and a 350 for short MATS, with a cargo door for stretchers.
    .
    Thats a Valid Question and I have never gotten a plausible answer, I don't recall a tender process, the aircraft was not bought by the AC but rather the GS and I don't know which if any other aircraft were considered.
    Certification is just that, the aircraft is certified in the same category as other light twins such as the Seneca. This category typically has aircraft that are used for training or recreational purposes and are rarely used for any kind of Bad weather commercial endeavour. For example they only have to demonstrate a net takeoff flight path in the event of a critical engine failure after departure, this does not provide for standard obstacle clearance and in reality an IFR departure is a dangerous prospect as you most likely will not have the performance to make it to a safe altitude, your only option is a visual pattern and return to the field, a difficult proposition when you are in cloud and below the MSA..

    Most aircraft are built to customer spec, and very few if any manufacturers produce white tail machines in the hope of finding a customer, BN is a cottage industry and thats being polite.
    Totally agree the mix of King Air models would have been a far better addition to the fleet then the LR-45.

    The PWC report was written by a couple of suits with no aviation knowledge or experience, they saw the two New GASU aircraft and decided to recommend them. Bear in mind the only aircraft they could name were the ones they saw on their visit to Bal. IMHO it was a terrible report and has hamstrung the AC in so many ways since.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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