Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Except the Caravan is 2 million euro? against 250,000 euro
2 million Euros isn't alot of money for something that will have upwards of a thirty year lifespan and will be employed in such a wide varity of roles.
I'd also love to see the Cessna's and King Air with a common colour scheme, they should adopt the same scheme as the PC-9's, It looks abit unprofessional to have 4 or 5 colour schemes for such a small inventory.
Hi there
The PC-6 is a superb aircraft and a lot of it's accidents, like the Caravan, relate to the fact that they are being operated from poor runways, in often bad weather, in countries with bad support infrastructure and sometimes scant maintenance.A PC-6 operated by the Don would have a much more benign life by comparison.Go to Clonbulloge, County Offaly and witness a PC-6 doing the hard job of parachute dropping every week, off a grass runway and getting field maintenance with no huge infrastructure and lots of manpower.I think Pilatus(and Clonbulloge) know a bit more about the PC-6 than the Don so if they think it'd be up to the job, then I'd take their advice.
regards
GttC
Already in service with GASU
Can take a sensor suite / weapons if required
High wings
Twin engined
Suitable for free fall & static line parachuting (10 + jumpmaster)
Exceptional airframe fatigue life
Less then one maintenance man-hour per flight hour
Low operating cost
Low stall speed
Up to 8 hour endurance
STOL from poor runways
Cost cUS $2 million
Hi there
Given the grief the Don has had with the Defender's avionics, I doubt if you give them one for free.A bog-standard BN-2T would do.
regards
GttC
Quest Kodiak and Cessna Caravan are fantastic looking aircraft(not a fan of the PC-6-tail draggers are just plain outdated and add an unnecessary risk and different flying skills that will have no relevance on other aircraft in the fleet)
From a pilots point of view both the Kodiak and the Caravan are a lot of plane for any low hours pilot, even if they have completed the Wings course on the PC-9. There certainly would be a lot of differences training and dual flying required before a young pilot could be let loose in one of those things. I don't think a lot of people realise that they are quite a large aircraft for single engined machines. Yes there are similarities such as both have buckets of power available, but they are not "hour builders" by any stretch of the imagination. Neither do they have the economics of the Cessna's. Don't get me wrong, I would be huge advocate of having either aircraft in the inventory(and have been earlier in this thread) for a light transport type role, but not in either of the roles of ATCP(Cash in Transit)/Observation or Hours/Experience builders.
Why has the switch to turbine power been so strongly mooted? Commonality, yes but at the price of a loss of some of the roles a slower aircraft like the Cessna can do at operating costs, which in aircraft terms amount to buttons. Is it that important to have an all turboprop fleet? One of the most important things in the development of a pilot is getting out there on your own and developing confidence in your own ability. I doubt this would be possible with either of the Kodiak or the Caravan (or heaven forbid the PC-6), until the pilot has amassed 500-600 hours at the MINIMUM. No pilot would or may I add should be sent solo in that type of aircraft until they have at least that many hours. People will say "If they can solo in the PC-9 then surely they can easily handle a Caravan ". Wrong. Why? They dont have the get out of jail free card that is the Martin Baker armchair under their backsides.
I know I might have my head bitten off for even suggesting this but I think something like the GA8 Airvan is tailor made to replace the Cessnas. Yes it has a Lycoming up front. But its got 300 thoroughbreds pulling you along and it can seat 1 pilot and 7pax, or with the seats removed can accommodate 8 skydivers, or an 800kg useful load(subtract the fuel carried to get the payload). Considering it burns just 13 gallons an hour, thats quite an economic aircraft for something in that size category. Size wise it's fills the gap between the Cessna 206 and 208. Good slow speed characteristics-a nice thing to have for the observation work it would be involved in.
I'll be lucky enough to fly one in less than a month so I'll report back and let you know what it's like.
Hi there
I have and it's excellent.Lots of very user-friendly features, well-built, big sliding door for the meat bombs, a few design quirks but overall, it's a delight to fly and well worth the public euro.
regards
GttC
Is the text of that report available online? The twin engine option was first suggested by PWC, a long time ago now.
Cant see any real evidence to the safety aspect? The Air Corps never lost anyone to engine failure in the Cessnas. Over almost 38 years of operations.
Co-incidentally, to dispel a common misconception, you do not need a twin engined aircraft to operate IFR in this country. There are numerous single engined aircraft in this country that operate IFR all the time. The only time you will need two engines to operate an aircraft in IFR is when they are being used for charter/public transport operations. Privately owned/Military aircraft are exceptions.
Twin is overkill in my opinion.Two engines..twice the maintenance. Safety? In a lot of aircraft, as they say "the second engine is just there to bring you to the scene of the crash".There's nothing suitable below the size of the Defender, and thats not something that you throw the keys to a newbie and say "off with you". Twin engined flight requires a much higher level of skill than single engine operations. Even light twins such as the Piper Seneca or Beech Duchess. You can forget the ATCP role with it as well, unless you equip it with a basic sensor suite. Why? It has a much bigger turn radius and therefore would need to fly at a higher altitude to maintain visual with the CIT convoy. Sensor suites cost money. You might end up with a budget for one aircraft instead of like for like replacement. The Rockets are a bog standard military plane. Definitely not Gucci. They perform a role and they perform it well. Why replace something that works with a different category of aircraft? You'll gain some in terms payload but you'll lose more in terms of the flexibility and economics of what we already have. Something simple, reliable, good value, difficult to break is what is needed. An enhanced Cessna. The Airvan definitely fits that category. It's like a Cessna 172 on steroids.
Hi there
One of the 172s nearly bought it when a cylinder cracked, almost all the way around, and almost blew off the head of the pot. The exhaust held it together and it managed to make it to Baldonnel.It did no lasting damage and was repaired and returned to service.
regards
GttC
Hi there
Given the grief the Don has had with the Defender's avionics, I doubt if you give them one for free.A bog-standard BN-2T would do.
regards
GttC
Heres a find. You dont often see this outside its hanger at Northolt. The Islander BN2T CC Mk2. There are two military variants in operational use. Ive visited the Station on a few occassions and have never seen either of them in open view.
Its use is described as " photographic mapping and light communications roles "
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment